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 .
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 11/18/2025 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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.
1. Claims 1-9 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) without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 are directed to facilitating customer transactions, including monitoring customer behavior in a store, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-8 recite a system comprising a plurality of sensors and processing circuitry. Claim 9 recites a method with at least one step. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (apparatus, process).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which customer transactions are facilitated and behavior of customer in a store is monitored, including through the facilitation of consumer-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
detect a customer that has entered a store;
detect a name of a commodity and a quantity of the commodity that the customer takes out from a commodity shelf;
add the commodity to an object of transaction with the customer and detect and compare detected items with a purchase list associated with the customer;
perform a settlement process for an amount of the transaction with the customer; and
monitor a behavior of the customer,
restricts an operation right…of the customer on which…has detected a predetermined behavior.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a to facilitate an in-store transaction and between a customer and business to monitor customer behavior in a store. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
a customer detection sensor to
a commodity detection sensor to,
a management apparatus including first processing circuitry configured to
a settlement apparatus including second processing circuitry configured to
a monitoring sensor to
wherein the first processing circuitry
on the settlement apparatus
the monitoring sensor
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 106-112 indicate that known, general purpose systems capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claim 9 is parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-8
Dependent claims 2-8 merely embellish the abstract idea of claim 1, and set forth and additional limitation (“a warning device”) similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claims 2-9 do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
2. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata (US 20200126146 A1) in view of Hagen et al. (US 12260446 B2, hereinafter Hagen)
Regarding Claim 1
Kurata discloses a commodity sales system for selling commodities, the commodity sales system comprising:
a customer detection sensor to detect a customer that has entered a store (Kurata: ¶27, 30);
a commodity detection sensor to detect a name of a commodity that the customer takes out from a commodity shelf (Kurata: ¶27, 30, 70);
a management apparatus including processing circuitry configured to add the commodity to an object of transaction with the customer (Kurata: ¶30);
a settlement apparatus including processing circuitry configured to perform a settlement process for an amount of the transaction with the customer; (Kurata: ¶112) and
a monitoring sensor to monitor a behavior of the customer, wherein the processing circuitry of the management apparatus restricts an operation right, on the settlement apparatus, of the customer on which the monitoring sensor has detected a predetermined behavior or a mismatch between the detected items and the purchase list by preventing the second processing circuitry from accepting input for changing at least one of a type and a quantity of commodities in the object of transaction until authorization is received. (Kurata: ¶91, 109: predetermined behavior of a maximum number of cancellations detected, further cancellations restricted)
Kurata does not explicitly disclose, but Hagen teaches, in a similar environment:
detect a quantity of the commodity that the customer takes out from a commodity shelf (Hagen: see at least column 2: line 51-column 3: line 54; column 13: lines 7-22)
detect and compare detected items with a purchase list associated with the customer (Hagen: see at least column 18: line 37 – column 19: line 24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kurata, with the features taught by Hagen, since such a modification would have permitted for guests with fully validated carts to more quickly and readily checkout, can reduce the manual effort to manage such checkout processes for retailers, and can provide for greater levels of trust between retailers and guests using scan and go type systems, which can increase the prevalence and availability of such systems for guests across retail environments. (Hagen: see at least column 2, lines 44-50)
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9 is parallel in scope to claim 1 and rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claim 2
Kurata further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry of the management apparatus accepts a change operation performed by using the settlement apparatus to change at least one of the kind and a number of commodities included in the object of transaction, from the customer on which the predetermined behavior has not been detected, and does not accept the change operation from the customer on which the predetermined behavior has been detected. (Kurata: ¶106-113)
Regarding Claim 5
Kurata discloses:
wherein in a case that the monitoring sensor has detected the predetermined behavior, the processing circuitry of the management apparatus performs a notification process for notifying a detection result (Kurata: ¶106-113)
Regarding Claim 7
Kurata discloses:
a warning device to notify a predetermined person that the notification process has been performed (Kurata: ¶106-113)
3. Claims 3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata in view of Hagen, as applied above, and further in view of Naito (US 20230410115 A1).
Regarding Claim 3
Kurata in view of Hagen does not explicitly disclose, but Naito teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the processing circuitry of the management apparatus performs a notification process for requesting approval for the change operation when the customer on which the predetermined behavior has been detected desires the change operation, and accepts the change operation when the change operation is approved (Naito: ¶32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kurata in view of Hagen, with the features of Naito, since such a modification would have enabled prevention of a payment from being performed if there is a possibility of a fraudulent act with respect to an operation of a payment terminal. (Naito: ¶4)
Regarding Claim 6
Kurata in view of Hagen does not explicitly disclose, but Naito teaches in a similar environment:
wherein in a case that the commodity detection sensor has detected that the customer has taken out, from the commodity shelf, a specific commodity for which a purchase qualification needs to be confirmed when the specific commodity is sold to the customer, the processing circuitry of the management apparatus performs a notification process for notifying a detection result (Naito: ¶32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kurata in view of Hagen, with the features of Naito, since such a modification would have enabled prevention of a payment from being performed if there is a possibility of a fraudulent act with respect to an operation of a payment terminal. (Naito: ¶4)
4. Claims 4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata in view of Hagen, as applied above, and further in view of Miyagi (US 20230196778 A1)
Regarding Claim 4
Kurata in view of Hagen does not explicitly disclose, but Miyagi teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the monitoring sensor detects commodities that the customer performing the settlement process with the settlement apparatus purchases, and the circuitry of the management apparatus performs a notification process for requesting confirmation of the commodities if the commodities changed by the change operation do not match the commodities detected by the monitoring sensor (Miyagi: ¶20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kurata in view of Hagen, with the features of Miyagi, since such a modification would have helped to avoid a situation in which, for example, a trouble with the customer occurs or trust in the store is deteriorated due to low reliability monitoring. (Miyagi: ¶4)
Regarding Claim 8
Kurata in view of Hagen does not explicitly disclose, but Miyagi teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the processing circuitry of the management apparatus learns behaviors of customers by using teacher data including information on the predetermined behavior, and detects the predetermined behavior based on a learning result (Miyagi: ¶83)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kurata in view of Hagen, with the features of Miyagi, since such a modification would have helped to avoid a situation in which, for example, a trouble with the customer occurs or trust in the store is deteriorated due to low reliability monitoring. (Miyagi: ¶4)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. With respect to Kurata, applicant asserts: “Kurata does not restrict operation rights based on detected predetermined behavior or mismatch with a purchase list. Kurata merely limits a number of cancellations to two times (see Kurata, [0108]), but this is a general limitation on all customers, and is not a restriction triggered by detecting predetermined behavior or detecting a mismatch with a purchase list.” However, the Examiner asserts that attempted cancellations above a maximum allowable number amounts to a “predetermined behavior”. Kurata detects these attempted cancellations, and thus meets the limitation. Further, detection of the mismatch is claimed in the alternative (“or a mismatch”) and is therefore not required by the claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the further amended limitations in relative to the cited prior art have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner refers applicant to the rejection above, where Hagen is cited as teaching the deficiencies of Kurata.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant initially argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception because:
Here, amended Claim 1 recites improvements to unmanned store systems through automated commodity detection with name and quantity identification, distributed processing architecture with inter-device control, dual-trigger restriction mechanism, and purchase list verification integrated with behavioral monitoring.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each of “automated commodity detection with name and quantity identification”, “dual-trigger restriction mechanism”, and “purchase list verification integrated with behavioral monitoring” are commercial operations generally applied to generic technological environment, as noted in the rejection above. Neither the claims, nor the specification indicates that the technologies used to implement these operations operate outside of their known, expected functions. Assertions that these operations amount to an improvement are essentially assertions of commercial improvements to unmanned store systems. Merely leveraging known technologies to improve commercial operations does not amount to any sort of technological improvement, and therefore would not render the claims eligible. With respect to the “distributed processing architecture with inter-device control”, the specific technical operation of the purported architecture and inter-device control is not set forth in the claims, and as noted in the rejection, the specification makes clear that the technology involved in implementing the invention is generic in nature, and not inventive. Accordingly, the claims do not set forth any technical improvements, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues:
The amended claims recite physical hardware components integrated with distributed processing circuitry: customer detection sensor, commodity detection sensor detecting name and quantity, monitoring sensor, first processing circuitry in management apparatus, and second processing circuitry in settlement apparatus. This integration creates a specific technological solution beyond abstract idea implementation.
In response, the Examiner notes that reciting a “specific technological solution” does not necessarily render claims eligible. In order for a “specific technological solution” to render a claim eligible, a claim must 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 the instant case, the specification makes clear the generic nature of the technological environment, and elements of that environment are used in their normal, expected manner. The claims do not integrate these technological elements in any manner beyond a general link, and therefore do not represent significantly more.
Applicant further argues:
The amended claims specify how unmanned commodity sales systems are improved through automated commodity detection with name and quantity, purchase list verification, dual-trigger restriction (behavior OR mismatch), and inter-device input prevention requiring authorization. These specific technological elements establish that the claims are "necessarily rooted in computer technology" as required under MPEP 2106.05(a).
As indicated above, the disclosure makes clear the generic nature of the technological environment set forth in the claims. These generic technologies are used to implement commercial operations to manage an unmanned store. Specifically, the problem set out to be solved by applicant is “improving crime prevention in unmanned stores” (see [0008] of Specification). The “necessarily rooted” standard for eligibility set forth in DDR considered whether the claimed solution was “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”. In the instant case, the claimed solution is neither “necessarily rooted” in computer technology, as it amounts to the mere application of the solution to a generic technological environment, nor is the solution to overcome a problem specifically arising in a realm of technology, as the problem of crime prevention in unmanned stores is a commercial problem, and not a technological one. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that:
The rejection provides no factual evidence that the specific combination of elements recited in the amended claims was well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field. In Berkheimer V. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit held that whether claim elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional is a factual determination that requires supporting evidence. The Office Action provides no such evidence.
However, the Examiner has provided a citation to both the present specification and to the MPEP (which in turn, cites judicial precedence) for indicating that certain elements (i.e., communicating information) are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Accordingly, the Examiner has provided two forms of the evidence required by the Berkheimer memo. There is no requirement that factual evidence be provided that all claimed elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and the Examiner did not assert that the entire combination of elements was well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Applicant further argues:
Amended Claim 1 recites the specific combination of: customer and commodity detection sensors (detecting name and quantity), monitoring sensor, first processing circuitry that adds commodities, detects and compares with purchase lists, and restricts operations based on dual triggers (behavior OR mismatch), second processing circuitry in settlement apparatus, and specific restriction mechanism preventing second processing circuitry from accepting input until authorization received. This specific technological combination is not and was not conventional in unmanned commodity sales systems.
Under MPEP 2106.05(e), additional elements that apply a judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond "generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" may constitute significantly more. The amended claims meaningfully apply any identified abstract concept through specific technological processes including automated commodity detection with name and quantity, purchase list verification integrated with transaction control, dual-trigger security logic, inter-device security protocol, and authorization-based security release.
Thus, the claim features amount to significantly more than any abstract idea. Therefore, the amended claims recite "significantly more" than an abstract idea itself.
In response, the Examiner re-emphasizes that the claims do not set forth specific technological operations performed by the technological elements in order to implement the claimed invention. Instead, the claims recite the intended results of these unrecited technological operations. For example, the claims do not recite what technological operations the claimed commodity detection sensor performs to detect the name and quantity of a commodity removed from a shelf, and the claims do not recite what technological operations are performed by the first processing circuitry to restrict an operation right. Merely reciting that various technological elements perform unspecified operations to arrive at a desired result is equivalent to reciting “apply it”, no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
For the above reasons, the claims are held to be ineligible and the rejection is maintained.
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 MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688