DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 06/05/2026.
Claims 13-16 have been added.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 1-16 have been examined.
A Terminal Disclaimer has been filed on 06/05/2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
With regard to the Double Patenting rejection, the Applicant has submitted a Terminal Disclaimer on 06/05/2026 between the instant claims and claims 1,2, 5-7 and 11-14 of Patent No. 12014370. Therefore, the Double Patent rejection is withdrawn.
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. In page 12, the Applicant asserted that “even if any elements are deemed abstract, claim 1 integrates them into a practical application under Prong Two of revised step 2A” & [for example], the processing apparatus of amended claim 1 solves this problem with a processor performing specific functions to accomplish this practical application . . .”. While noting that the claim tries to incorporate additional elements such as cameras, sensors to detect both human and items and to perform a settlement without the traditional method of checking out with the cashier, the claim still does not arise to the level of integrating a judicial exception into a practical application. At most, the claim leverages the use of existing technology to arrange the settlement method while checking out items at the merchant’s or market place. There was no improvement to technology per se. Hence, Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B Prong Two, the same reasoning above could be used to perform the analysis and the claim is not found to be “significantly more” as it does not render any inventive concept in performing a traditional commercial interaction such as shopping and checking out items. Hence, Limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”): Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the arguments have been considered and they are persuasive. In particular, the Applicant asserted in page 17 that “the cited references do not teach or suggest ‘after transmitting the settlement completion notification to the terminal apparatus . . .’. By contrast, Ouimet and Li moth disclosing confirmation that is performed as part of the settlement, e.g., before the settlement is finalized.” Furthermore, Herring teaches a method, computer program product, and system to identify one or more items in a transaction are provided. The method includes capturing images of the items, determining a set of possible identifications for each item based on the images, determining information regarding the transaction, selecting an identification for each item from the sets of possible identifications, based on the determined information, and adding the selected identifications to the transaction. Identifications for items may be selected based on confidence factors, price thresholds, and customer information.
Li teaches a method for determining a user's order in a physical store, without requiring the user to queue for checkout and have their order manually created. A service management system performs a gesture recognition on the user, as well as receives location information of a commodity. The service management system then determines whether the user is leaving a shopping area with the commodity, and adds information corresponding to the commodity to the user's order.
Ouimet teaches a shopping agent is provided. A product displayed at a premises of a first retailer is selected for purchase. A bar code displayed on the product is optically scanned using a mobile device. Data stored in the bar code is transmitted from the mobile device to the shopping agent. A first set of conditions existing while selecting the product is analyzed. A second set of conditions is determined that will result in a lower price for the product. The second set of conditions is communicated from the shopping agent to the mobile device. An option to defer the purchase of the product until the second set of conditions exist is presented. A notification is generated on the mobile device when the second set of conditions exist. The second set of conditions includes purchasing the product at a second retailer. The second set of conditions includes subscribing to the product.
None of the cited references, in combination or individually, established a prima facie case for an obviousness type rejection. Hence, it is not obvious for one of the ordinary in the art to combine the above references and any additional reference(s) to teach the claimed invention. Therefore, the art rejection is withdrawn.
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 1-16 are directed to a method, a system, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes).
Claims 1-16 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 1-12 are directed to an abstract idea, Method of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1, 11, 12 are similar. Claim 1, for instance, recites, in part, A processing apparatus comprising: a camera; at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: receive, from the camera, an image of an area of a product placing place, the image encompassing a reference range; recognize, based on image processing, product discrimination information of a product picked up from the product placing space, and register the recognized product discrimination information in association with customer discrimination information; recognize a customer by detecting a face of the customer from a facial image obtained from the camera, and performing processing based on a feature value extracted from the detected face and a feature value of the customer stored in the at least one memory; and execute, when it is detected, based on processing the image from the camera, that the customer that has picked up the product performs a predetermined action, a settlement based on a registration content, wherein the predetermined action comprises detecting, based on the processor processing the image, that the customer moves a body part from inside the reference range to outside the reference range, wherein the executing the settlement based on the registration content comprises: transmitting, to a terminal apparatus of the customer, a settlement completion notification after the settlement based on the registration content; after transmitting the settlement completion notification to the terminal apparatus of the customer, receiving, from the terminal apparatus of the customer, a response of whether the settlement content shown in the settlement completion notification is correct; modifying the settlement content in response to reception of a response of a fact that the settlement content is not correct; and executing the settlement for a price indicated by the modified settlement content. These limitations are directed to processing payment at the retailer or market place – business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a processing apparatus, at least one memory, a camera, a product, a processor, a terminal apparatus recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, transmitting, modifying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1-12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are merely performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device helps to compose a risk profile and purchase insurance based on such risk for a property is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim 2 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite recognizing customer discrimination information and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a processing apparatus) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 3 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites processing image information and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a processing apparatus, a camera) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 4 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites processing a settlement and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a processing apparatus, a camera, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 5 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites registering customer discrimination and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a processing apparatus, a camera, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 6 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites detecting a return product and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a processing apparatus, a camera, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 7 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites detecting a number of steps in a direction and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a processing apparatus, a camera, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 8 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites detecting a number of detecting a predetermined action and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a processing apparatus, a camera, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 9 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites detecting a reference range and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a processing apparatus, a camera, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 10 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites transmitting data for an apparatus and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a processing apparatus, a camera, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 13 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites naming the purchased products and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a processing apparatus, a camera, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 14 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites modifying the movement range of customers and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a processing apparatus, a camera, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 15 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites detecting movement of customers and determining the movement of products and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a processing apparatus, a camera, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 16 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites tracking product before state change satisfies a predetermined condition and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a processing apparatus, a camera, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-16 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5:00 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, Michael W. Anderson, can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights