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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s initially filed application dated 3/26/2024, claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined in this reply.
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 1-20 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.” Claims 1-20 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Representative claim 11 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A point-of-sale system, comprising: a checkout counter; a registration input device mounted on the checkout counter and configured to permit a clerk to register items in a sales transaction for a customer; and a customer settlement device separated from the checkout counter, the customer settlement device including: a clerk display unit facing towards a space in which the clerk stands while operating the registration input device; a customer display unit facing towards a space in which a customer stands while operating the customer settlement device; and a processor configured to: receive a designation from the registration input device indicating whether the customer is an electronic receipt service member, cause the customer display unit to display a first display screen with selectable options for transaction receipt output when the received designation indicates the customer is not the electronic receipt service member and a second display screen with selectable options for transaction receipt output when the received designation indicates the customer is the electronic receipt service member, the selectable options of the first display screen being different from the selectable options of the second display screen, receive a selection of a selectable option on the first or second display screen, and perform processing for the transaction receipt output according to the received selection of the selectable option.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “registration device, settlement device, displays, and input device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “registration device, settlement device, displays, and input device” the above italicized limitations in the context of these claims encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be a fundamental economic practice or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites 4 additional elements – registration device, settlement device, displays, and input device. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that 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 elements of a registration device, settlement device, displays, and input device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the registration device, settlement device, displays, and input device is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 201800727 A to Fumikatsu (“Fumikatsu 1”), in view of JP 2016119093 A to Fumiktasu (“Fumikatsu 2”), in view of EP 2960831 A1 to Hidehiko (“Hidehiko”).
In regards to claims 1, 11, and 17, Fumikatsu 1 discloses the following limitations:
A settlement device for retail transaction settlement processing, the settlement device comprising: a clerk display unit; a customer display unit; and a processor configured to: (Fumikatsu 1 discloses a POS including a customer and clerk display unit and a CPU. ) (see at least the following)
PNG
media_image1.png
86
899
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receive a designation of whether a customer in a sales transaction is an electronic receipt service member, cause the received designation indicates the customer is the electronic receipt service member, the selectable options of the first display screen being different from the selectable options of the second display screen, receive a selection of a selectable option on the first or second display screen, and (Fumikatsu 1 discloses receiving a member ID and changing based on the member ID the receipt selection screens for display to the user, further provides for receiving selection of desired receipt type from the user. ) (see at least the following)
PNG
media_image2.png
216
889
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
167
908
media_image3.png
Greyscale
perform processing for the transaction receipt output according to the received selection of the selectable option.
(Fumikatsu 1 discloses performing transaction receipt processing based on the selection.) (see at least the following)
PNG
media_image4.png
192
900
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fumikatsu 1 does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
a registration input device mounted on the checkout counter and configured to permit a clerk to register items in a sales transaction for a customer; and a customer settlement device separated from the checkout counter,
cause the customer display unit to display a first display screen with selectable options for transaction receipt output
The Examiner provides Hidehiko to teach the following limitations:
a registration input device mounted on the checkout counter and configured to permit a clerk to register items in a sales transaction for a customer; and a customer settlement device separated from the checkout counter, (Hidehiko teaches a POS and receipting system and method that includes a checkout counter with a registration device mounted to it and a separate customer settlement device. See at least Figure 1)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Fumikatsu the teachings of Hidehiko since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Examiner provides Fumikatsu 2 to teach the following limitations:
cause the customer display unit to display a first display screen with selectable options for transaction receipt output (Fumikatsu 2 teaches being able to display the receipt selection on either the clerk or the customer screen.) (see at least the following)
PNG
media_image5.png
253
902
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Fumikatsu the teachings of Fumikatsu 2 since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 2 and 12, Fumikatsu 1 discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further configured to: perform settlement processing for settling the sales transaction. (see at least the following)
PNG
media_image6.png
63
896
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Fumikatsu 1 discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: an input interface, wherein the designation of whether the customer in the sales transaction is an electronic receipt service member is received via the input interface. (see at least the following)
PNG
media_image7.png
124
894
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 7 and 15, Fumikatsu 1 discloses multiple payment types, however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further configured to: cause the customer display unit to display a payment method selection screen permitting the customer to select a payment method to be used for settlement processing for settling the sales transaction, and perform settlement processing for settling the sales transaction according to the payment method selected by the customer on the payment method selection screen.
The Examiner provides Fumikatsu 2 to teach the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further configured to: cause the customer display unit to display a payment method selection screen permitting the customer to select a payment method to be used for settlement processing for settling the sales transaction, and perform settlement processing for settling the sales transaction according to the payment method selected by the customer on the payment method selection screen. (see at least the following)
PNG
media_image8.png
213
908
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Fumikatsu 1 the teachings of Fumikatsu 2 since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 8 and 15, Fumikatsu 1 does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the selection of the selectable option on the first or second display screen must be received before the payment method selection screen is displayed by the customer display unit.
The Examiner provides Fumikatsu 2 to teach the following limitations:
wherein the selection of the selectable option on the first or second display screen must be received before the payment method selection screen is displayed by the customer display unit. (see at least the following)
PNG
media_image9.png
248
902
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 9, Fumikatsu 1 discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: a printer for printing paper receipts. (see at least the following)
PNG
media_image10.png
157
905
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 10 and 16, Fumikatsu 1 discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a selection of a switching button via the clerk display unit while the first or second display screen is displayed by the customer display unit and then display a receipt format selection screen on the clerk display unit. (see at least the following)
PNG
media_image11.png
117
893
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-6, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 201800727 A to Fumikatsu (“Fumikatsu 1”), in view of JP 2016119093 A to Fumiktasu (“Fumikatsu 2”), in view of EP 2960831 A1 to Hidehiko (“Hidehiko”), in view of Official Notice.
In regards to claims 4 and 20, Fumikatsu 1 discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further configured to: perform registration processing on items in the sales transaction based on commodity information received via the input interface. (see at least the following)
PNG
media_image12.png
196
896
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Further the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to provide multiple ways to both receive membership information such as via a scanner device which can also be used to receive commodity information on items for purchase.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Fumikatsu 1 the teachings of Official Notice since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 5, 13, and 19, Fumikatsu 1 discloses multiple different types of receipts available depending on membership status (see above citations), however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the selectable options on the first display screen include a standard paper receipt option, a no receipt option, and a memo receipt option, and the selectable options on the second display screen include an electronic receipt option and a memo receipt option.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to provide options such as no receipt, paper receipts to a non-member and providing the option of an electronic receipt to a member as the address/phone number of the member would be known. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Fumikatsu 1 the teachings of Official Notice since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 6 and 14, Fumikatsu 1 discloses providing selectable options for paper and electronic receipts (see above citations), however, does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein, when the memo receipt option is selected on the second display screen, the processing for the transaction receipt output includes both processing for output of an electronic receipt and a printing of a paper memo receipt.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art that when providing a paper receipt to a member of a receipting service that a copy of the receipt can also be electronically sent to the user as an electronic backup. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Fumikatsu 1 the teachings of Official Notice since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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 at (571)272-6790. 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627