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
For the purpose of prior art consideration, the effective filing date of the instant application is based on the application filed in Japan on July 7th, 2023. Priority to this date has been perfected with the English translation of the certified copy of the instant application as filed in the United States on December 12th, 2025.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Whether a Claim is to a Statutory Category
In the instant case, claims 1-9 recite a device/machine; claims 10-17 recite a system/machine and claims 18-20 recite a method/process that are performing a series of functions. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention of a machine. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step2A – Prong 1: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 10 and 18) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include an enumerated “abstract idea”:
A point-of-sale device, comprising:
an interface unit for acquiring a recognition result from an external device, the recognition result being a recognition of a product based on a captured image of the product;
a user input unit for receiving user operations; and
a processor configured to:
execute a registering process for registering the product in a sales transaction based on the acquired recognition result;
cause a display screen to display a list of each product registered in the sales transaction;
receive a change operation via the user input unit to change a registered product on the list;
add information corresponding to the change operation to the list displayed on the display screen;
receive a termination operation from the user input unit, the termination operation indicating an end of the registering process; and
after receiving the termination operation, send a change notification to a clerk terminal if the change operation was received before the termination operation was performed.
[Emphasis added to show the abstract idea being executed by additional elements that do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea]
This apparatus claim is grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test because the claims involve a series of steps for sales activities of executing a registering process for registering the product in a sales transaction, which is a process that is encompassed by the abstract idea of commercial or legal interactions. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47. Accordingly, claim 1 (and similarly claims 10 and 18) are found to recite abstract idea(s).
Step2A – Prong 2: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements that Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional elements of the claims such as point-of-sale device, interface unit, external device, user input unit, processor, display screen and clerk terminal merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the point-of-sale device, interface unit, external device, user input unit, processor, display screen and clerk terminal perform the steps or functions of sales activities of executing a registering process for registering the product in a sales transaction. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer (or technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as point-of-sale device, interface unit, external device, user input unit, processor, display screen and clerk terminal) performing functions of acquiring, receiving, registering, displaying, changing, adding and sending that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step2B: Does the Claim Amount to Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional elements of point-of-sale device, interface unit, external device, user input unit, processor, display screen and clerk terminal being used to perform the steps of acquiring, receiving, registering, displaying, changing, adding and sending amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of sales activities of executing a registering process for registering the product in a sales transaction. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, point-of-sale device, interface unit, external device, user input unit, processor, display screen and clerk terminal performs the steps or functions of commercial or legal interactions through sales activities of executing a registering process for registering the product in a sales transaction. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of commercial or legal interactions through sales activities of executing a registering process for registering the product in a sales transaction because said combination of elements remains disclosed at a high level of generality. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(l)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 10 describes an system to perform functions of object recognition, acquiring, receiving, registering, displaying, changing, adding and outputting relating to sales activities of executing a registering process for registering the product in a sales transaction without additional elements beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as a point-of-sale device, imaging device, edge device, interface unit, user input unit, processor and display screen that provide significantly more than the abstract idea of commercial or legal interactions through sales activities of executing a registering process for registering the product in a sales transaction as noted above regarding claim 1. Therefore, this independent claim is also not patent eligible.
Independent claim 18 describes a method to perform functions of acquiring, receiving, registering, displaying, changing, adding and sending relating to sales activities of executing a registering process for registering the product in a sales transaction without additional elements beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as an external device, user input unit, display screen and clerk terminal that provide significantly more than the abstract idea of commercial or legal interactions through sales activities of executing a registering process for registering the product in a sales transaction as noted above regarding claim 1. Therefore, this independent claim is also not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 11-17 and 19-20 further describes the abstract idea of commercial or legal interactions. Dependent claims 2-7, 11-17 and 19-20 add receiving, updating, changing, payment processing, change confirmation and image analysis steps that are executed by a processor, clerk terminal, user input unit, point-of-sale device and as disclosed in independent claims 1, 10 and 18, however these additional steps remain disclosed at a high level of generality and do not amount to more than mere computer implementation of the abstract idea, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 11-17 and 19-20 are also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of these claims on ineligible independent claims 1, 10 and 18 also renders dependent claims 2-7, 11-17 and 19-20 as not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 8 and 9 further describes the abstract idea of commercial and/ or legal interactions. Dependent claims 8 and 9 add technical elements of an interface unit being connected to the imaging device and the interface unit being connected to an edge device via a network, respectively. However, these additional technical elements do not relieve the fact that the functions performed by the respective independent base claim 1 of these dependent claims remain disclosed at a high level of generality and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 8 and 9 are also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of these claims on ineligible independent claim 1 also renders dependent claims 8 and 9 as not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itani et al. (US 2015/0310414 A1) in view of Brakob et al. (US 2023/0056327 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and 18, Itani teaches:
A point-of-sale device/ method (See Itani ¶ [0027] – POS register device comprising a checker device (10) and a POS terminal (20)), comprising:
an interface unit for acquiring a recognition result from an … device, the recognition result being a recognition of a product based on a captured image of the product (See Itani ¶ [0030-0033] – scanning device capturing images of product identifiers … the checker device identifies [recognition result] the product on the basis of the product code extracted from the product identification label using the scanning device, a product code acquired by operation of the checkout screen, or a product code directly inputted through the keyboard and registers this product as the item to be checked out);
a user input unit for receiving user operations (See Itani ¶ [0030-0033] – a product code acquired by operation of the checkout screen, or a product code directly inputted through the keyboard and registers this product as the item to be checked out); and
a processor (See Itani ¶ [0038] – CPU of the POS device) configured to:
execute a registering process for registering the product in a sales transaction based on the acquired recognition result (See Itani ¶ [0034] – the checker device 10 registers an item to be checked out as described above in ¶ [0030-0033] … from the product identification label using a handheld scanner, or a product code (or segment code) directly inputted through, for example, a keyboard, and additionally registers this product as the item to be checked out);
cause a display screen to display a list of each product registered in the sales transaction (See Itani ¶ [0036] – The display unit displays a sales registration screen and a payment screen);
receive a change operation via the user input unit to change a registered product on the list (See Itani ¶ [0052] – upon detecting that a designation changing button is pressed on the registration screen through the touch screen, the display processing unit causes the display unit to display a designation changing screen for changing a transaction statement record corresponding to the line (data) selected on the registration screen);
add information corresponding to the change operation to the list displayed on the display screen (See Itani ¶ [0054-0055] – multiple buttons are displayed on a screen to effect changes to a transaction as shown in Fig. 6);
receive a termination operation from the user input unit, the termination operation indicating an end of the registering process (See Itani ¶ [0050] – data in each line of the list displayed corresponds to each transaction statement record, and data in the final line is selected, wherein said final line selection is the termination operation indicating an end of the registering process by example); and
after receiving the termination operation, send a change notification to a clerk terminal if the change operation was received before the termination operation was performed (See Itani ¶ [0050-0052] – after selection of the final line item of a transaction, a designation changing button is displayed on a touch screen [change notification to a clerk terminal by example], [0094] - At the time of changing transaction statements that have been registered, the delete flags of plural transaction statement records stored in the transaction-information storage unit are set to be in the deleted state. Then, a new transaction statement record having the request change information reflected therein is stored in the transaction-information storage unit).
While Itani teaches a point of sale register device that recognizes products through captured images of product data (Itani ¶ [0027] and [0030-0033]), Itani does not explicitly teach that said recognition is from an external device. This is taught by Brakob (See Brakob ¶ [0111-0112] – using external devices, such as edge computing devices to analyze image data to recognize products in images of product scanning activity during a checkout process). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the captured image checkout process of Itani the use of external devices for image analysis as taught by Brakob to improve accuracy in scanning motion identification determinations (Brakob ¶ [0024]), thereby increasing the accuracy of the captured image checkout process of Itani.
Regarding Claim 2, 11 and 19, modified Itani teaches:
The point-of-sale device/ system/ method according to claim 1, 10 and 18, wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive a change confirmation operation for confirming the change operation (See Itani ¶ [0055] – Upon detecting user operation performed to an enter button on the designation changing screen, the display processing unit acquires the set transaction information after change has been made, as request change information, and transmits, to the information acquiring unit [change confirmation operation by example]); and
update products registered in the sales transaction to reflect the change operation confirmed by the received change confirmation operation (See Itani ¶ [0094-0095] – the data corresponding to the plural transaction statement records before change are made are displayed on the registration screen in a form such that these data are in the deleted state, and one transaction statement record after change has been made is additionally displayed… Thus, the register operator can recognize the operations performed by him/herself by checking data displayed on the registration screen).
Regarding Claim 3 and 12, modified Itani teaches:
The point-of-sale device/ system according to claim 2 and 11, wherein change confirmation operation is received from the clerk terminal (See Itani ¶ [0071] – cashier device and checker device displaying the same information and [0094-0095] - the register operator can recognize the operations performed by him/herself by checking data displayed on the registration screen).
Regarding Claim 4 and 13, modified Itani teaches:
The point-of-sale device/ system according to claim 3 and 12, wherein the change notification includes information indicating registered products on the list before and after the change operation (See Itani ¶ [0094-0095] – the data corresponding to the plural transaction statement records before change are made are displayed on the registration screen in a form such that these data are in the deleted state, and one transaction statement record after change has been made is additionally displayed).
Regarding Claim 5, 14 and 20, modified Itani teaches:
The point-of-sale device/ system/ method according to claim 2, 11 and 18, wherein the change confirmation operation is received from the user input unit (See Itani ¶ [0074] - Upon detecting that the enter button on the designation changing screen… is pressed through user operation and [0094-0095] – the data corresponding to the plural transaction statement records before change are made are displayed on the registration screen in a form such that these data are in the deleted state, and one transaction statement record after change has been made is additionally displayed… Thus, the register operator can recognize the operations performed by him/herself by checking data displayed on the registration screen).
Regarding Claim 6 and 15, modified Itani teaches:
The point-of-sale device/ system according to claim 2 and 11, wherein the processor is further configured to:
perform a payment processing for the sales transaction after the change confirmation operation is performed (See Itani ¶ [0036] - The display unit 22 a displays, for example, a sales registration screen and a payment screen. The display 25 for purchaser displays, for example, the total purchase price, and the amount of change and [0094-0095] – the data corresponding to the plural transaction statement records before change are made are displayed on the registration screen in a form such that these data are in the deleted state, and one transaction statement record after change has been made is additionally displayed… Thus, the register operator can recognize the operations performed by him/herself by checking data displayed on the registration screen).
Regarding Claim 7 and 16, modified Itani teaches:
The point-of-sale device/ system according to claim 1 and 10, wherein the information corresponding to the change operation is a strikethrough of a deleted registered product (See Itani ¶ [0051] - the display processing unit draws a strike-through line through a line (data) corresponding to the transaction statement record indicating the deleted state).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Itani teaches:
The point-of-sale device according to claim 1, wherein the interface unit is connected to an imaging device (See Itani ¶ [0030] – scanning device (13) captures images of product codes, [0038 & 0040] – input-output interface (6) is connected to said scanning device as shown in Fig. 2 – in the checker device element (6) is connected to element (13)).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Itani teaches:
The point-of-sale device according to claim 1, wherein the interface unit is connected, via a network (See Itani ¶ [0038 & 0040] – input-output interface is part of the POS register device and [0102-0104] – POS register device may be part of a POS system that is connected through a communication network),
While Itani teaches a point of sale register device that recognizes products through captured images of product data (Itani ¶ [0027] and [0030-0033]), Itani does not explicitly teach that said recognition is from a connection to an edge device for image analysis. This is taught by Brakob (See Brakob ¶ [0111-0112] – using external devices, such as edge computing devices to analyze image data to recognize products in images of product scanning activity during a checkout process). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the captured image checkout process of Itani the use of external devices for image analysis as taught by Brakob to improve accuracy in scanning motion identification determinations (Brakob ¶ [0024]), thereby increasing the accuracy of the captured image checkout process of Itani.
Regarding Claim 10, Itani teaches:
A point-of-sale system (See Itani ¶ [0102-0104] – POS register device may be part of a POS system that is connected through a communication network), comprising:
an imaging device (See Itani ¶ [0030-0033] – scanning device capturing images of product identifiers);
a point-of-sale device connected to the imaging device (See Itani ¶ [0030] – scanning device (13) captures images of product codes, [0038 & 0040] – input-output interface (6) is connected to said scanning device as shown in Fig. 2 – in the checker device element (6) is connected to element (13));
…, wherein
the point-of-sale device includes:
an interface unit for acquiring a recognition result from … the imaging device, the recognition result being a recognition of a product based on a captured image of the product (See Itani ¶ [0030-0033] – scanning device capturing images of product identifiers … the checker device identifies [recognition result] the product on the basis of the product code extracted from the product identification label using the scanning device, a product code acquired by operation of the checkout screen, or a product code directly inputted through the keyboard and registers this product as the item to be checked out);
a user input unit for receiving user operations (See Itani ¶ [0030-0033] – a product code acquired by operation of the checkout screen, or a product code directly inputted through the keyboard and registers this product as the item to be checked out); and
a processor configured to:
execute a registering process for registering the product in a sales transaction based on the acquired recognition result (See Itani ¶ [0034] – the checker device 10 registers an item to be checked out as described above in ¶ [0030-0033] … from the product identification label using a handheld scanner, or a product code (or segment code) directly inputted through, for example, a keyboard, and additionally registers this product as the item to be checked out);
cause a display screen to display a list of each product registered in the sales transaction (See Itani ¶ [0036] – The display unit displays a sales registration screen and a payment screen);
receive a change operation via the user input unit to change a registered product on the list (See Itani ¶ [0052] – upon detecting that a designation changing button is pressed on the registration screen through the touch screen, the display processing unit causes the display unit to display a designation changing screen for changing a transaction statement record corresponding to the line (data) selected on the registration screen);
add information corresponding to the change operation to the list displayed on the display screen (See Itani ¶ [0054-0055] – multiple buttons are displayed on a screen to effect changes to a transaction as shown in Fig. 6);
receive a termination operation from the user input unit, the termination operation indicating an end of the registering process (See Itani ¶ [0050] – data in each line of the list displayed corresponds to each transaction statement record, and data in the final line is selected, wherein said final line selection is the termination operation indicating an end of the registering process by example); and
after receiving the termination operation, output a change notification if the change operation was received before the termination operation was performed (See Itani ¶ [0050-0052] – after selection of the final line item of a transaction, a designation changing button is displayed on a touch screen [change notification to a clerk terminal by example], [0094] - At the time of changing transaction statements that have been registered, the delete flags of plural transaction statement records stored in the transaction-information storage unit are set to be in the deleted state. Then, a new transaction statement record having the request change information reflected therein is stored in the transaction-information storage unit).
While Itani teaches a point of sale register device that recognizes products through captured images of product data (Itani ¶ [0027] and [0030-0033]), Itani does not explicitly teach that said recognition is from an edge device connected to the imaging device and the point-of-sale device and configured to perform object recognition processing on images from the imaging device or that a recognition result is acquired from the edge device. This is taught by Brakob (See Brakob ¶ [0110-0112] – using external devices, such as edge computing devices to analyze image data to recognize products in images of product scanning activity during a checkout process). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the captured image checkout process of Itani the use of external devices for image analysis as taught by Brakob to improve accuracy in scanning motion identification determinations (Brakob ¶ [0024]), thereby increasing the accuracy of the captured image checkout process of Itani.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Itani teaches:
The point-of-sale system according to claim 10, wherein the recognition result includes a plurality of candidate products (See Itani ¶ [0049] – the product name is acquired from a product information table [plurality of candidate products by example] on the basis of the product code).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b):
Claims 1-20 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) based on said claims invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the applicant argues that 112(f) should not be invoked. The examiner has taken this as correct and has not invoked 112(f) based on Applicant's admission/argument that 112(f) was not intended at all to be invoked. Therefore, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) are withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
The claims of the instant application have not been amended and the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in maintained.
Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that amended independent claims 1, 10 and 18 the claims reflect a tangible improvement and technical solution to identified problems in existing art related to a product sales data processing device and method that can reduce a burden on a clerk related to change operations related registered products and the like, said claims do not improve the functioning of a product sales data processing device. This is because said independent claims 1, 10 and 18 remain without any clear improvement to the underlying technology by remaining to be executed by technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality and in their ordinary capacity amounting to not more than computer implementation of the abstract idea, which does not show integration into a practical application nor does it show significantly more than the abstract ideas discussed above in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Further, due to this high level of generality, said claims do not reflect a technological improvement to a technical problem, but rather only reflect improvement of the abstract idea. Any improvement of a claimed invention must be clearly reflected by said claims.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-17 and 19-20 also remain rejected as described above in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The specification of an instant application is not read into the claims during examination.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
The claims of the instant application have not been amended and the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in maintained.
Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that the combination of Itani and Brakob fail to teach “receive a termination operation ... indicating an end of the registering process” and “after receiving the termination operation, send a change notification to a clerk terminal.” as required by independent claims 1, 10 and 18, these features are in fact taught by Itani as previously cited given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the specification of the instant application. The applicant’s arguments mention the cited sections of Itani that are used to teach these limitations with no real discussion of said cited sections. Rather, the applicant goes on to argue sections of Itani that are not relied on to teach these limitations. Nonetheless, Itani, as cited teaches: … “data in the final line is selected”, which shows the termination operation indicating an end of the registering process by example. This satisfies the claim limitations as they are currently disclosed because said limitations do not require a particular type of termination operation. Further, Itani teaches: “after selection of the final line item of a transaction, a designation changing button is displayed on a touch screen” as noted in ¶ [0050-0052]. The combination of Itani and Brakob remain to teach the all of the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application explicitly or by example in a manner that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was filed, thereby showing a prima facie case of obviousness regarding said claims. The applicant is generally reminded that prior art must be considered in its entirety (MPEP 2141.02 (VI)).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-17 and 19-20 also remain rejected as described above in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The applicant is generally reminded that prior art must be considered in its entirety (MPEP 2141.02 (VI)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW S WERONSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm 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 A. 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.
/MATTHEW S WERONSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627