DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on March 16, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP-2023-041905 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 11/12/2025. Currently, claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 14 have been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled.
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, 5-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for selling restricted products.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“…detect that the customer has entered a store;
…detect when a customer takes a substitute item representing the specific commodity from a commodity shelf in the store;
…initiate a confirmation process for confirming that the customer has the purchase qualification for the specific commodity;
in case that the confirmation process confirms that the customer has the purchase qualification, add the specific commodity to an object of transaction with the customer and perform a process to hand over an actual article of the specific commodity to the customer; and
…perform a settlement process for an amount of the transaction with the customer.”
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data (user and item interaction data), 2) verifying customer purchase requirement, 3) generating a commodity list, and 4) processing and completing a transaction.
The above steps describe the process of selling restricted products based one or more rules. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (sales activities and/or managing personal behavior or interaction between people) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers sales activities and/or managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements in the form of one or more computing elements (customer detection sensor, commodity detection sensor, management apparatus and settlement apparatus) to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract ideas identified above. The computing elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The computing elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 14 recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 5-7 and 9-13 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
For example, claim 5 describes “generating a notification when the substitute item is included in the transaction”. This step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 6 and 7 describe the steps of “gathering data and performing customer purchase verification”. These steps are directed to and encompasses the identified abstract idea.
Claims 9-13 simply limits the replacement and actual commodity to a particular type of product. The court has held that simply limiting/confining the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology (in this case, particular product type) does not amount to significantly more nor integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2021/0403239 (Patel et al. – hereinafter Patel), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2022/0335483 (Tanabe).
Referring to claim 1, Patel discloses a commodity sales system for selling a specific commodity for which a purchase qualification needs to be confirmed when the specific commodity is sold to a customer, the commodity sales system comprising:
a detector to detect when the customer takes a substitute item representing the specific commodity from a commodity shelf in the store; [See paragraphs 0131, 0140, 0147, 0153]
a management apparatus including first processing circuitry configured to:
in response to detecting that the customer has taken the substitute item from the commodity shelf, initiate a confirmation process for confirming that the customer has the purchase qualification for the specific commodity; and [See paragraphs 0050, 0131, 0147, 0153, 0156-0159]
in a case that the confirmation process confirms that the customer has the purchase qualification, add the specific commodity to an object of transaction with the customer and perform a process to hand over an actual article of the specific commodity to the customer; and [See paragraphs 0140, 0147, 0156-0159, 0178, 0179]
a settlement apparatus including second processing circuitry configured to perform a settlement process for an amount of the transaction with the customer. [See paragraphs 0028, 0059, 0063, 0168, 0181]
Patel does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
a customer detection sensor to detect that the customer has entered a store; and
a commodity detection sensor to detect when the customer takes an item from a commodity shelf in the store.
Tanabe teaches the limitations:
a customer detection sensor to detect that the customer has entered a store; and [See Tanabe paragraphs 0044, 0045]
a commodity detection sensor to detect when the customer takes an item from a commodity shelf in the store. [See paragraphs 0078, 0105]
One of ordinary skill in the art at would have found it obvious to update Patel using a product detection device as found in Tanabe, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as detecting customer interaction with a product. This would be accomplished with no unpredictable results. As stated in Leapfrog, "applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace for years." (Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, 485 F.3d 1157, 82USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir 2007). [See Tanabe paragraphs 0105; Patel paragraphs 0147, 0153]
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Patel and Tanabe discloses the commodity sales system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a reading device to read, from the substitute item to which information on a corresponding specific commodity is attached, the information; and [See Patel paragraphs 0130, 0131, 0134-0136, 0149]
a discharge apparatus to discharge the actual article of the specific commodity, [See Patel paragraphs 0049, 0054, 0102, 0119, 0120, 0122, 0133, 0153, 0172, 0194]
wherein,
the management apparatus performs the confirmation process based on the information read from the substitute item; [See Patel paragraphs 0050, 0131, 0147, 0153, 0156-0159]
the management apparatus performs the process to hand over the actual article by controlling the discharge apparatus to discharge the actual article, and [See Patel paragraphs 0049, 0054, 0102, 0119, 0120, 0122, 0133, 0172, 0194]
in the case that the purchase qualification has been confirmed by the confirmation process, the discharge apparatus discharges the specific commodity corresponding to the substitute item. [See Patel paragraphs 0049, 0054, 0102, 0119, 0120, 0122, 0133, 0172, 0194]
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Patel and Tanabe discloses the commodity sales system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a discharge apparatus to discharge the actual article of the specific commodity, wherein the management apparatus detects, by using the commodity detection sensor, the substitute item taken out from the commodity shelf by the customer, and performs the confirmation process, and [See Patel paragraphs 0049, 0054, 0102, 0119, 0120, 0122, 0133, 0153, 0172, 0194]
in the case that the purchase qualification has been confirmed by the confirmation process, the discharge apparatus discharges the specific commodity corresponding to the substitute item. [See Patel paragraphs 0049, 0054, 0102, 0119, 0120, 0122, 0133, 0147, 0172, 0194]
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Patel and Tanabe discloses the commodity sales system according to claim 2, wherein when the settlement apparatus has completed a settlement process for the amount of transaction, the discharge apparatus discharges the actual article of the specific commodity. [See Patel paragraphs 0028, 0059, 0063, 0168, 0181, 0220, 0225]
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Patel and Tanabe discloses the commodity sales system according to claim 1, wherein the first processing circuitry is further configured to perform a notification process when the replacement is included in the object of transaction with the customer who has started the settlement process by using the settlement apparatus. [See Tanabe paragraphs 0080, 0106 – A user is notified when an age-restricted item is included in the list of items.]
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Patel and Tanabe discloses the commodity sales system according to claim 1,
wherein the settlement apparatus includes an electronic payment device configured to acquire information for electronic payment from an electronic payment medium possessed by the customer, and [See Patel paragraphs 0028, 0059, 0063, 0168, 0181]
the first processing circuitry is further configured to
request a server, which performs the electronic payment, to provide information on the purchase qualification of the customer, based on the information acquired by the electronic payment device, and perform the confirmation process based on the information acquired from the server. [See Patel paragraphs 0028, 0059, 0063, 0168, 0181]
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Patel and Tanabe discloses the commodity sales system according to claim 1, further comprising: a reading device to read information from a qualification certificate possessed by the customer, wherein the first processing circuitry performs the confirmation process by reading information on the purchase qualification with the reading device. [See Patel paragraphs 0042, 0130, 0131, 0134-0136, 0149]
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Patel and Tanabe discloses the commodity sales system according to claim 1, wherein the substitute item has a card shape, and information indicating a corresponding specific commodity is added to the substitute item. [See Patel paragraph 0147]
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Patel and Tanabe discloses the commodity sales system according to claim 1, wherein the substitute item has a three-dimensional shape, and information indicating a corresponding specific commodity is added to the substitute item. [See Patel paragraphs 0130, 0131, 0134-0136, 0147, 0149]
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Patel and Tanabe discloses the commodity sales system according to claim 10, wherein the substitute item is a dummy box having an appearance resembling the corresponding specific commodity. [See Patel paragraph 0147]
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Patel and Tanabe discloses the commodity sales system according to claim 1, wherein the specific commodity is an age-limited commodity for which age of purchasers is limited, and the confirmation process includes a process to confirm age of the customer. [See Patel paragraphs 0140, 0147, 0178, 0179]
Referring to claim 13, the combination of Patel and Tanabe discloses the commodity sales system according to claim 12, wherein the specific commodity includes at least one of alcohol and cigarettes. [See Patel paragraphs 0043, 0127, 0139]
Referring to claim 14, it recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel and Tanabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2023/0169508 (Murakami et al. – hereinafter Murakami).
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Patel and Tanabe discloses the commodity sales system according to claim 1 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein when the purchase qualification of the customer is not confirmed in the confirmation process, or when the customer has performed an operation with the settlement apparatus to cancel purchase of the specific commodity, the second processing circuitry is configured to, exclude the specific commodity from the object of transaction, and perform the settlement process.
Murakami teaches a system with the limitation: wherein when the purchase qualification of the customer is not confirmed in the confirmation process, or when the customer has performed an operation with the settlement apparatus to cancel purchase of the specific commodity, the second processing circuitry is configured to, exclude the specific commodity from the object of transaction, and perform the settlement process. [See paragraphs 0095-0104]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an age verification feature as in Murakami in the system executing the method of the combination of Patel and Tanabe. As in the combination of Patel and Tanabe, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the age verification feature to the combination of Patel and Tanabe with the predictable result of controlling and monitoring the sales of controlled/age-restricted items as needed in the combination of Patel and Tanabe. [See Glaser paragraphs 0073, 0097, 0107, 0151; Murakami paragraphs 0095-0104]
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 5-7 and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim describes collecting data associated with customer entry to a store. Data associated with user interaction with a substitute item is collected and transmitted. The transmitted data is processed/analyzed (compared to stored one or more criteria/rules) to determine user purchase qualification. The result of the data analysis is used to complete the transaction (hand over of an actual commodity).
Thus, the claim limitation describes the steps of, 1) acquiring data (user and item interaction data), 2) verifying customer purchase requirement, 3) generating a commodity list, and 4) processing and completing a transaction.
The claim limitation, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (sales activities and/or managing personal behavior or interaction between people) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The recited physical hardware components, “customer detection sensor”, “commodity detection sensor”, “management apparatus” and “settlement apparatus” describe computer elements which represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In Enfish, the Federal Circuit held that the claims of the patents at issue describe the steps of configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table, in both method claims and system claims that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The court identified the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. The Federal Circuit stated that the Enfish claims were not ones in which general-purpose computer components are added after the fact to a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation, but were directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts, and concluded that the Enfish claims were thus not directed to an abstract idea
In the present case, the claimed invention uses computer technology to provide an automated qualification verification based on collected data from user interaction with a substitute item and analyzing the collected data against one or more stored criteria/rules.
The recited physical hardware components, “customer detection sensor”, “commodity detection sensor”, “management apparatus” and “settlement apparatus” describe computer elements which represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In DDR Holdings, the court held that the claim addresses a business challenge (retaining website visitors) that was particular to the Internet and the claimed solution was necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. However, in the instant case, the claims provide a business solution of making payments between two parties through an intermediary. The claims use computer-technology in providing the claimed business solution. The recited computer elements serve as tools upon which the abstract idea is implemented. The claims fail to provide improvement to a technical field nor improvement (such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements) to computer-related technology.
In McRO, the court examined the specification, which described the claimed invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules, rather than human artists, to set morph weights (relating to facial expressions as an animated character speaks) and transition parameters between phonemes (relating to sounds made when speaking). As explained in the specification, human artists did not use the claimed rules, and instead relied on subjective determinations to set the morph weights and manipulate the animated face to match pronounced phonemes. The McRO court thus relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.
Unlike DDR Holdings and McRO, the present claims provide a business solution that uses computer technology to automate qualification verification based on collected data from user interaction with a substitute item and analyzing the collected data against one or more stored criteria/rules. Data is collected and analyzed based on interaction of a customer with the “substitute” item. The use of “substitution item” does not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
103 Rejection(s)
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Glaser in view of Patel; and claims 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable of Glaser in view of Patel and further in view of Murakami have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that some of Applicant’s arguments are directed to newly added amendments, and have been addressed in the updated rejection.
The system according to Patel teaches that “[[t]]he controlled dispensing environment 1300 may optionally include a placard 1352 depicting available controlled products 1304 for sale. Each controlled product 1304 on the placard 1352 may be associated with a scannable barcode, QR code, or any other type of marking that, when scanned, identifies the product. The placard 1352 may implemented as a mat placed on a counter in proximity to the clerk and the consumer, a sign placed on a surface in view of the clerk and the consumer, or any other type of medium (e.g., an electronic display) capable of depicting products for selection by a consumer and for scanning by a clerk. Example implementations of the placard 1352 are described below with reference to FIGS. 16A and 16B.” See paragraph 0140
In addition, Patel teaches that “The method 1400 may begin as a result of a consumer (also referred to as a user or a dispensing requester) communicating his or her intention to purchase a controlled product 1304. The consumer may have identified the controlled product 1304 using a placeholder (e.g., empty packaging, paper, or cardboard) in the store identifying the product that the consumer has selected. The consumer may have built a shopping card on a mobile application or website, and such application or website may provide an identifier (e.g., a barcode) associated with the shopping cart or product selections…” See paragraph 0147.
Thus, the system of Patel may include a placard or item placeholder within the store to represent a specific controlled item to be purchased by a user.
In addition, Patel teaches that a customer may communicate an intention to purchase an item by using a placeholder (e.g., empty packaging, paper, or cardboard) in the store identifying the product that the consumer has selected, building a shopping cart on a mobile application or website, pointing to a particular controlled product on the display of the dispensing machine or the retailer machine, pointing to a particular controlled product on signage or a countertop mat that has the product name or image, or verbally conveying to a clerk a particular controlled product that is desired for purchase.” See paragraph 0147.
Patel teaches that “[[In]] operation 1402, the processing circuitry 1316 identifies a controlled product 1304. The product may be identified based on any of the consumer or clerk actions described above with regard to providing a product identification. For example, a product identifier such as a barcode or image representing the product may be selected (on the user interface of the display screen 1314) or scanned using the scanning device 1306 and/or on-board scanner 1318 (e.g., by scanning a barcode on a placard 1352, or by scanning a code on a mobile device of the consumer).” See paragraph 0149.
Thus, a scanning device can be used to detect and transmit information associated with a substitute item located in a store that a user has selected. The use of a commodity detection sensor is merely "applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices” with no unpredictable results.
Conclusion
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 OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627