DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on February 22, 2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a customer display device that displays”, “a store checker display device that displays”, in claims 1 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the customer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the customer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, the claims describe a commodity registration device and method which is a mental process (observation/evaluation) and a method of organizing a human activity (commercial interaction). The limitations on displaying customer and store checker information, acquiring information and displaying progress of an operation could be all performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. Other than reciting a registration apparatus, display devices, a memory and a processor nothing in the claim precludes the steps for being performed in the human mind and/or the help of paper and pencil. All the steps of acquiring and displaying information recite functions directed to sales activities and commercial interactions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Generic computer components performing generic computer functions alone, do not amount to significantly more that an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process and method of organizing a human activity grouping. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding generic computer components would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's commodity registration process in the general field of sales and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computers to perform the acquiring and displaying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. There are no improvements to technology or any new technology involved. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components, the processing steps and the information used. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Gotanda (US 2019/0259010A1).
Claim 1
Gotanda disclose the following limitations:
A commodity registration apparatus that registers a commodity to be purchased by the customer, comprising: (see at least abstract and figure 2-registration apparatus).
a customer display device that displays a customer display image including various types of customer information and receives an operation by the customer; (see at least figure 3 element 1h and paragraph 0032).
a store checker display device that displays a store checker display image including various types of store checker information and receives an operation by the store checker; (see at least figure 4 ACT10 figure 5-element AR1).
and a processor configured to acquire, during commodity registration in one transaction, information regarding the operation by the customer, which is received by the customer display device, and display, on a basis of the acquired information regarding the operation by the customer, information indicating a progress status of the operation by the customer on the store checker display device (see at least figure 5-element AR1 and paragraph 0011-a monitoring screen indicating an operational state of a checkout process).
Claim 2
Furthermore, Gotanda discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor displays the information indicating the progress status of the operation by the customer on the store checker display device for each of a plurality of customer operation items (see at least figure 5-element AR1, paragraph 0051 and 0055).
Claim 3
Furthermore, Gotanda discloses the following limitations:
wherein the information displayed for each of the customer operation items displayed on the store checker display device includes information about a customer operation start status, a customer operating status, and a customer operation end status. (see at least figure 5-element AR1, paragraph 0051 and 0055).
Claim 4
Furthermore, Gotanda discloses the following limitations:
wherein the information displayed for each of the customer operation items displayed on the store checker display device includes information about an intervention-required status in which intervention of the store checker is required (see at least figure 5-AR3-“call store clerk”).
Claim 5
Furthermore, Gotanda discloses the following limitations:
further comprising a main memory having a customer operation information storage area,
(see at least figure 2).
wherein the customer operation information storage area is an area for storing the information regarding the operation by the customer based on the operation by the customer, (see at least paragraphs 0025 and 0052).
and the processor stores the acquired information regarding the operation by the customer in the customer operation information storage area of the main memory. (see at least paragraphs 0025 and 0052).
Claim 6
Furthermore, Gotanda discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor displays on the store checker display device the information indicating the progress status of the operation by the customer in a distinctive manner in accordance with the progress status. (see at least figure 5-element AR1, paragraph 0051 and 0055).
Claim 7
Furthermore, Gotanda discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor displays information about notice of necessary processing on the store checker display device on a basis of the acquired information regarding the operation by the customer. (see at least figure 4-abnormality flag, figure 5-element AR1, paragraph 0051 and 0055).
Claim 8
Furthermore, Gotanda discloses the following limitations:
wherein in a case where the acquired information regarding the operation by the customer includes information about an intervention-required status in which intervention of the store checker is required, the processor displays the information about the notice of the necessary processing on the store checker display device.(see at least figure 5, paragraphs 0051 and 0057).
Claim 9
Furthermore, Gotanda discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor displays the information regarding the operation by the customer as a list on the store checker display device after a subtotal in the one transaction is registered (see at least figure 5 and paragraph 0055).
As per claim 10, claim 10 recite substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Gotanda (US 2018/0276639A1) discloses all elements in claim 1 including an employee display device for monitoring customer progress/stages transitions from operation start to end (see at least figure 5 element 11jb).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627