DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the Amendments filed on 04/13/2026.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 04/13/2026, has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-6 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations from the prior Office Action have been withdrawn pursuant Applicant’s amendments. A new claim interpretation has been added for “receiver.”
Priority
This patent Application claims priority from International Application PCT/JP2021/036125 filed 09/30/2021. This benefit has been received and acknowledged and therefore, the instant claims receive the effective filing date of 09/30/2021.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
-“a receiver configured to receive from the computer a purchase request for a commodity” in claim 1.
-“the receiver receives a purchase request for the commodity from the computer succeeded in user authentication” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-a settlement system performing settlement of a commodity using a robot which is not fixed, and a computer, which is communicable with the robot, wherein the robot includes:
-a camera;
-a receiver configured to receive from the computer a purchase request for a commodity; and
-an input interface configured to accept an input of purchase-related information which indicates a purchase content of the commodity in accordance with the purchase request, and
-the computer includes:
-a display configured to display an image captured by the camera and the purchase-related information; and
-a payment processor configured to start the settlement of the commodity, based on the purchase-related information, in a case where a consent to a purchase content of the commodity is obtained,
-wherein the input interface is configured to accept, via the computer, the input of the purchase-related information performed by a user who desires to purchase the commodity, and the payment processor is configured to start settlement of the commodity in response to an input indicating consent to the purchase content of the commodity being provided via the robot by a person-in-charge of the commodity who is different from the user
The above limitations recite the concept of requesting purchase of a commodity, providing purchase-related information which indicates a purchase content of the commodity, settling purchase of the commodity. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations of a settlement system performing settlement of a commodity using a robot which is not fixed, and a computer, which is communicable with the robot, wherein the robot includes: a receiver configured to receive from the computer a purchase request for a commodity; and an input interface configured to accept an input of purchase-related information which indicates a purchase content of the commodity in accordance with the purchase request, and a display configured to display an image captured by the camera and the purchase-related information; and a payment processor configured to start the settlement of the commodity, based on the purchase-related information, in a case where a consent to a purchase content of the commodity is obtained, wherein the input interface is configured to accept, via the computer, the input of the purchase-related information performed by a user who desires to purchase the commodity, and the payment processor is configured to start settlement of the commodity in response to an input indicating consent to the purchase content of the commodity being provided via the robot by a person-in-charge of the commodity who is different from the user are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the settlement is performed using a robot which is not fixed, and a computer, which is communicable with the robot, that the receiving is via a receiver, and from the computer, that the accepting is via an input interface, that the that the displaying is via a display, that the image is captured by the camera, that the starting of the settlement is via a payment processor, that the accepting of the input is by the input interface via the computer, that the starting of the settlement is via the payment processor, and that the providing is via the robot, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “a robot,” “a computer,” “a receiver,” “an input interface,” “a display,” “the camera,” and “a payment processor,” language, “receive,” “accept,” “display,” “start the settlement,” “accept,” and “start the settlement,” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-a settlement system performing settlement of a commodity using a robot which is not fixed, and a computer, which is communicable with the robot, wherein the robot includes:
-a camera;
-a receiver configured to receive from the computer a purchase request for a commodity; and
-an input interface configured to accept an input of purchase-related information which indicates a purchase content of the commodity in accordance with the purchase request, and
-the computer includes:
-a display configured to display an image captured by the camera and the purchase-related information; and
-a payment processor configured to start the settlement of the commodity, based on the purchase-related information, in a case where a consent to a purchase content of the commodity is obtained,
-wherein the input interface is configured to accept, via the computer, the input of the purchase-related information performed by a user who desires to purchase the commodity, and the payment processor is configured to start settlement of the commodity in response to an input indicating consent to the purchase content of the commodity being provided via the robot by a person-in-charge of the commodity who is different from the user
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by [0029] of Applicant’s specification – “The CPU 10a is a control unit that controls the execution of programs stored in the RAM 10b or ROM 10c, and performs arithmetic operation and processing of data.” Specifically, the additional elements of a robot, a computer, a camera, a receiver, an input interface, a display, and a payment processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of receiving data, accepting data, displaying data, starting settlement of data) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) 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.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Claim 6 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 6 recites the additional elements a robot, a computer, and a camera, however, claim 6 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Therefore, claims 1 and 6 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 3-5, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 3-5 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claim 5 does not recite any farther additional elements, and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. Dependent claims 3-4 recite the additional elements of the input interface, the payment processor, the computer, the robot, a plurality of computers, the robot, and the receiver, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 3-5 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-5 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1 and 6, dependent claims 3-5 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. requesting purchase of a commodity, providing purchase-related information which indicates a purchase content of the commodity, settling purchase of the commodity) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee et al. (US 2021/0182930 A1), hereinafter Yee, in view of Igata et al. (US 2019/0227551 A1), hereinafter Igata.
Regarding claim 1, Yee discloses a settlement system performing settlement of a commodity using a robot which is not fixed, and a computer, which is communicable with the robot,
-wherein the robot includes:
-a camera (Yee, see at least: “the remote shopping assistant 101 may be a robot [i.e. wherein the robot includes:] or another programmable machine. The remote shopping assistant 101 may include a camera 103 [i.e. a camera]” [0016]);
-a receiver configured to receive from the computer a purchase request for a commodity -The receiver is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as software running on hardware in light of paragraphs [0065] and [0029-0030] of Applicant’s Spec (Yee, see at least: “the system may receive a list of items [i.e. receive a purchase request for a commodity]. The list of items may also be updated continuously throughout the process. The list of items may be selected on a mobile application (or other type of application) on a mobile device (or a computer, etc.) of the shopper that is communicated to the cloud” [0037] and “The system may receive inputs from the shopper to determine if the item should be added to the cart … The remote shopper may thus choose to select the item [i.e. a purchase request for a commodity], find another item, or cancel shopping altogether. The selection from the remote shopper [i.e. receive from the computer] may be sent via data to the shopping assistant, either directly [i.e. a receiver configured to] or via the remote server” [0039] and “the remote shopping assistant 101 may be a robot [i.e. the robot] or another programmable machine” [0016] and “During operation, the CPU 107 may execute stored program instructions that are retrieved from the memory unit. The stored program instructions may include software that controls operation of the CPU 107 to perform the operation described herein [i.e. a receiver configured to]” [0017]); and
-an input interface configured to accept an input of purchase-related information which indicates a purchase content of the commodity in accordance with the purchase request (Yee, see at least: “The remote shopping assistant 101 may be equipped with various sensors 105 that are in communication with the CPU 107 … The sensor data indicating various attributes of the produce's quality [i.e. which indicates a purchase content of the commodity in accordance with the purchase request] may be communicated to the various subsystems via the CPU 107 with a transceiver. The CPU 107 may, for example, utilize image recognition based on photographic data supplied by a camera [i.e. an input interface configured to accept an input of purchase-related information] to identify a type of fruit. In another embodiment, the CPU 107 may utilize image recognition to scan a bar code and determine the item and associate details (e.g., pricing, manufacturer, etc.) with that item [i.e. which indicates a purchase content of the commodity in accordance with the purchase request]” [0020] and “the CPU 107 may execute stored program instructions that are retrieved from the memory unit. The stored program instructions may include software that controls operation of the CPU 107 to perform the operation described herein. In some examples, the processor may be a system on a chip (SoC) that integrates functionality of the CPU 107, the memory unit, a network interface, and input/output interfaces [i.e. an input interface configured to accept an input] into a single integrated device” [0017] and Fig. 1 indicates that the CPU 107, the camera, and the sensors are part of the remote shopping assistant 101 robot [i.e. wherein the robot includes: an input interface]), and
-the computer includes:
-a display configured to display an image captured by the camera and the purchase-related information (Yee, see at least: “The system 100 may include a mobile device 115. The mobile device 115 may include a phone [i.e. the computer includes: a display configured to display], tablet, wearable device, or other items. The mobile device 115 may include an application that is utilized to pick and choose grocery or produce. The phone 115 may include a display that has a freshness bar 117. The freshness bar 117 may indicate a freshness level for a particular produce item or grocery item, such as a fruit or vegetable [i.e. display the purchase- related information]. The mobile device 115 may include various other applications related to the remote shopping that allow the user to pick and choose groceries, make purchases, view images from various cameras in system 100 [i.e. an image captured by the camera], etc.” [0029] and “The cameras can capture these images and displayed real time through a mobile app or online portal to the shoppers. Shoppers can therefore be inspired by looking at the real-time video images, or have the ability to zoom in and pan the view of the camera to look at the produce [i.e. display an image captured by the camera and the purchase- related information]. This allows shoppers to see the produce anytime they want and have the ability to gauge if they want to buy the produce today or to pass on the purchase” [0014]); and
-a payment processor configured to start the settlement of the commodity, based on the purchase-related information, in a case where a consent to a purchase content of the commodity is obtained (Yee, see at least: “At step 219, the system may check-out the items in the cart for purchase and begin delivery [i.e. start the settlement of the commodity]. Thus, the shopping assistant may receive a confirmation that the shopper confirmed all purchases [i.e. in a case where a consent to a purchase content of the commodity is obtained]. The shopper may confirm that purchase utilizing, a mobile device. The shopping assistant may then receive the confirmation and physical purchase the items at the grocery. Once the shopper purchases the items (either utilizing their own payment profile or the shopper's payment profile), the shopper may receive a confirmation email or notification (e.g. SMS message or another alert)” [0045] and “The cameras can capture these images and displayed real time through a mobile app or online portal to the shoppers. Shoppers can therefore be inspired by looking at the real-time video images, or have the ability to zoom in and pan the view of the camera to look at the produce. This allows shoppers to see the produce anytime they want and have the ability to gauge if they want to buy the produce today or to pass on the purchase [i.e. based on the purchase-related information]” [0014] and “Routines executed to implement the embodiments may be implemented as part of an operating system or a specific application, component, program, object, module or sequence of instructions referred to as “computer programs.” The computer programs typically include one or more instructions set at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when read and executed by one or more processors in a computer, cause the computer to perform operations necessary to execute elements involving the various aspects [i.e. a payment processor configured to]” [0134]),
-wherein the input interface is configured to accept, via the computer, the input of the purchase-related information performed by a user who desires to purchase the commodity (Yee, see at least: (Yee, see at least: “The system may receive inputs from the shopper to determine if the item should be added to the cart. Thus data that has been communicated from the shopping assistant to the remote shopper (via the remote server or directly to the remote shopper) may indicate the analysis of the grocery item (e.g., produce). From there, the remote shopper may receive such data indicative of freshness, color, weight, softness, ripeness, etc. The data or information that the remote shopper may receive may be derived from the various sensors (e.g., chemical sensor, gas sensor, spectrometer, etc.). The remote shopper may then decide from the data whether or not to accept the item [i.e. the input of the purchase-related information performed by a user who desires to purchase the commodity]. The remote shopper may thus choose to select the item, find another item, or cancel shopping altogether. The selection from the remote shopper may be sent via data to the shopping assistant, either directly [i.e. the input interface is configured to accept, via the computer] or via the remote server” [0039]).
Yee does not disclose that the payment processor is configured to start settlement of the commodity in response to an input indicating consent to the purchase content of the commodity being provided via the robot by a person-in-charge of the commodity who is different from the user.
Igata, however, teaches an autonomous mobile robot carrying out a shopping task (i.e. [0149]), including the known technique of the payment processor being configured to start settlement of the commodity in response to an input indicating consent to the purchase content of the commodity being provided via the robot by a person-in-charge of the commodity who is different from the user (Igata, see at least: “the shopping task may be carried out automatically or with assistance of a clerk. In the case where the shopping is assisted by a clerk, the autonomous mobile robot 200 may display screens shown in FIG. 8 by the input-output unit 207 to ask the clerk [i.e. being provided via the robot by a person-in-charge of the commodity who is different from the user] to carry out picking-up of merchandise and the checking-out process [i.e. the payment processor is configured to start settlement of the commodity in response to an input indicating consent to the purchase content of the commodity]” [0150] and “The control unit 103 includes as functional modules an operation plan creation part 1031, an environment perceiving part 1032, and a task execution part 1033. These functional modules may be implemented by executing programs stored in storage means, such as a read only memory (ROM), by a central processing unit (CPU)” [0057] and Fig. 8 displays an interface of the robot including areas for the clerk to input data such as the item availability and item price [i.e. an input indicating consent to the purchase content of the commodity being provided via the robot by a person-in-charge of the commodity who is different from the user] and Fig. 6). This known technique is applicable to the system of Yee as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to an autonomous mobile robot carrying out a shopping task.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the payment processor being configured to start settlement of the commodity in response to an input indicating consent to the purchase content of the commodity being provided via the robot by a person-in-charge of the commodity who is different from the user, as taught by Igata, to the teachings of Yee would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar systems. Further, adding the modification of the payment processor being configured to start settlement of the commodity in response to an input indicating consent to the purchase content of the commodity being provided via the robot by a person-in-charge of the commodity who is different from the user, as taught by Igata, into the system of Yee would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would enable purchase of merchandise without need of going to a real store (Igata, [0010]).
Regarding claim 3, Yee in view of Igata teaches the system of claim 1, Yee further discloses:
-wherein the input interface accepts, via the computer, the input of the purchase-related information performed by the user who desires to purchase the commodity (Yee, see at least: “The system may receive inputs from the shopper to determine if the item should be added to the cart. Thus data that has been communicated from the shopping assistant to the remote shopper (via the remote server or directly to the remote shopper) may indicate the analysis of the grocery item (e.g., produce). From there, the remote shopper may receive such data indicative of freshness, color, weight, softness, ripeness, etc. The data or information that the remote shopper may receive may be derived from the various sensors (e.g., chemical sensor, gas sensor, spectrometer, etc.). The remote shopper may then decide from the data whether or not to accept the item [i.e. input of the purchase-related information performed by the user who desires to purchase of the commodity]. The remote shopper may thus choose to select the item, find another item, or cancel shopping altogether. The selection from the remote shopper may be sent via data to the shopping assistant, either directly [i.e. the input interface accepts, via the computer] or via the remote server” [0039]).
Yee does not disclose that the payment processor starts settlement of the commodity in response to the person-in-charge of the commodity inputting, via the robot, a consent to the purchase content of the commodity.
Igata, however, teaches an autonomous mobile robot carrying out a shopping task (i.e. [0149]), including the known technique of the payment processor starting settlement of the commodity in response to the person-in-charge of the commodity inputting, via the robot, a consent to the purchase content of the commodity (Igata, see at least: “the shopping task may be carried out automatically or with assistance of a clerk. In the case where the shopping is assisted by a clerk, the autonomous mobile robot 200 may display screens shown in FIG. 8 by the input-output unit 207 to ask the clerk [i.e. the person-in-charge of the commodity inputting, via the robot, a consent to the purchase content of the commodity] to carry out picking-up of merchandise and the checking-out process [i.e. the payment processor starts settlement of the commodity in response to]” [0150] and “The control unit 103 includes as functional modules an operation plan creation part 1031, an environment perceiving part 1032, and a task execution part 1033. These functional modules may be implemented by executing programs stored in storage means, such as a read only memory (ROM), by a central processing unit (CPU)” [0057] and Fig. 8 displays an interface of the robot including areas for the clerk to input data such as the item availability and item price [i.e. in response to the person-in-charge of the commodity inputting, via the robot, a consent to the purchase content of the commodity]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yee with Igata for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Yee in view of Igata teaches the system of claims 1, 3, or 4, Yee further discloses:
-wherein the purchase-related information includes at least a purchase price (Yee, see at least: “The remote shopping assistant 101 may be equipped with various sensors 105 that are in communication with the CPU 107 … The sensor data indicating various attributes of the produce's quality may be communicated to the various subsystems via the CPU 107 with a transceiver. The CPU 107 may, for example, utilize image recognition based on photographic data supplied by a camera to identify a type of fruit. In another embodiment, the CPU 107 may utilize image recognition to scan a bar code and determine the item and associate details (e.g., pricing [i.e. wherein the purchase-related information includes at least a purchase price], manufacturer, etc.) with that item” [0020]).
Claim 6 recites limitations directed towards settlement method for performing settlement of a commodity by using a robot, which includes a camera and is not fixed, and a computer, which is communicable with the robot (Yee, see at least: “the remote shopping assistant 101 may be a robot or another programmable machine. The remote shopping assistant 101 may include a camera 103” [0016] and “Thus, the network interface device may communicate data to various subsystems of the shopping system 100” [0019] and “The system 100 may include a mobile device 115. The mobile device 115 may include a phone, tablet, wearable device, or other items. The mobile device 115 may include an application that is utilized to pick and choose grocery or produce” [0029]). The limitations recited in claim 6 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee in view of Igata in further view of Baryakar et al. (US 2015/0100461 A1), hereinafter Baryakar.
Regarding claim 4, Yee in view of Igata teaches the system of claims 1 or 3, Yee further discloses:
-the receiver receives a purchase request for the commodity from the computer succeeded in user authorization - The receiver is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as software running on hardware in light of paragraphs [0065] and [0029-0030] of Applicant’s Spec (Yee, see at least: “At step 201, the system may assign an assistant to a shopper. The system may begin to assign the assistant to the shopper based on a trigger or request from an application, website, or other type of input. The system may assign the assistant based on a distance from the delivery location, rating, compatibility with the shopper [i.e. receives a purchase request for the commodity from the computer succeeded in user authorization], store that the assistant is shopping at (e.g., shopping at the same store as the shopper wishes to purchase items), etc.” [0035]).
Yee in view of Igata does not disclose that there are a plurality of computers which are communicable with the robot, and the receiver receiving a purchase request for the commodity from the computer succeeded in user authentication, out of the plurality of computers.
Baryakar, however, teaches allowing users to use a robot to remotely shop for and purchase merchandise (i.e. [0033]), including the known technique of, there being a plurality of computers which are communicable with the robot (Baryakar, see at least: “Resolver 108 receives and processes a variety of control commands sent by two or more users via the device controllers 106 [i.e. wherein there are a plurality of computers], and determines based on a predefined set of rules operation commands which are to be executed by the robot 102 [i.e. which are communicable with the robot]” [0060]), and
the known technique of receiving a purchase request for the commodity from the computer succeeded in user authentication, out of the plurality of computers (Baryakar, see at least: “the multiple users robotic system may be used for remote shopping and may allow the two or more users to use the robot to locate merchandise, view merchandise and purchase merchandise [i.e. receives a purchase request for the commodity]” [0033] and “Resolver 108 receives and processes a variety of control commands sent by two or more users via the device controllers 106 [i.e. out of the plurality of computers], and determines based on a predefined set of rules operation commands which are to be executed by the robot 102” [0060] and “a prioritization of control commands received, that is, which control commands are more important than others; a preferential assignment to a particular device controller over other device controllers [i.e. from the computer succeeded in user authentication]” [0061] and “Resolver rules module 301 includes definitions, preferences and limitations, which are embedded in the robotic server software in the current exemplary embodiment. Way of example: taking into consideration a period of time users are connected to the system in current connection and previous connections, according to users' history, registered and guest users [i.e. from the computer succeeded in user authentication], dates of users' purchasing, dates of entering to the system, frequency of purchasing, amount of purchasing” [0041]). These known techniques are applicable to the system of Yee in view of Igata as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to allowing users to use a robot to remotely shop for and purchase merchandise.
It would have been recognized that applying the known techniques of, there being a plurality of computers which are communicable with the robot, and receiving a purchase request for the commodity from the computer succeeded in user authentication, out of the plurality of computers, as taught by Baryakar, to the teachings of Yee in view of Igata would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar systems. Further, adding the modifications of there being a plurality of computers which are communicable with the robot, and receiving a purchase request for the commodity from the computer succeeded in user authentication, out of the plurality of computers, as taught by Baryakar, into the system of Yee in view of Igata would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow users to take part in controlling a robot's movement according to their interest (Baryakar, abstract).
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that The Office alleges that claims 1-6 are directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, namely, a commercial interaction. Applicant respectfully disagrees. As amended, claim 1 recites a robot that is not fixed, a computer communicable with the robot, a camera, a receiver, an input interface, a display, and a payment processor, together with the particular recited interaction of those components. Amended claim 1 further recites that purchase-related information is input via the computer by a user who desires to purchase the commodity, and that consent to the purchase content is provided via the robot by a person-in-charge of the commodity who is different from the user. These limitations are not directed merely to a generalized commercial interaction, but instead recite a particular machine-based implementation with the expressly recited components and operations (Remarks, page 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the amended claims recite additional elements, which are analyzed under Prong 2 in accordance with the MPEP, the limitation recite the concept of requesting purchase of a commodity, providing purchase-related information which indicates a purchase content of the commodity, settling purchase of the commodity. The amended limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a), as they encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities. Additionally, merely reciting machine-based components and operations at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that, even if some aspect of the claims could be characterized as involving a commercial interaction, the claims integrate any such concept into a practical application. The claimed invention provides a technical mechanism for controlling transaction authorization in a distributed environment, ensuring that final approval is tied to the robot's location and interface. Such a configuration is not a mere instruction to apply a commercial practice using a computer, but rather a particular machine-based implementation that governs system operation (Remarks, pages 1-2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Controlling transaction authorization in a distributed environment is a sales activity and merely providing approval via the interface of a robot amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that amended claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Even if some aspect of the claim were characterized at a high level as involving a purchase, the ordered combination recited in amended claim 1 is not merely a generic instruction to apply that concept using a computer. Rather, amended claim 1 recites a specific set of components and a particular claimed interaction among them (Remarks, page 2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually. The additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are ineligible.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102/103
Applicant argues that independent claim 1 has been amended to require that purchase-related information is input, via the computer, by a user who desires to purchase the commodity, and that consent to the purchase content is provided, via the robot, by a person-in-charge of the commodity who is different from the user. Such a consent architecture is not disclosed in Yee. Yee describes a remote shopping assistant in which the shopper selects items, receives information, and confirms purchases. That is not the same as the presently claimed arrangement, in which the user enters purchase-related information but a different actor provides the operative consent via the robot. The specific multi-actor interaction in which the robot serves as the medium through which the different approving actor provides consent is not taught or suggested by Yee. For at least these reasons, amended independent claim 1 is submitted to be patentable over Yee (Remarks, pages 2-3).
Applicant’s argument has been considered but is moot because this arguments does not apply to the current combination of references being used to teach this amended feature.
Applicant further argues that amended independent claim 6 recites features substantially similar to those recited in independent claim 1 and is submitted to be patentable for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is patentable. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and is patentable for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is patentable (Remarks, page 3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in response to the arguments above, claim 1 is not allowable. Accordingly, independent claim 6 and dependent claim 5 are not allowable.
Applicant further argues that Claims 2-3 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Yee, in view of Igata et al. (US 2019/0227551 Al) ("Igata"). Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Yee, in view of Baryakar et al. (US 2015/0100461 Al) ("Baryakar"). Claim 2 has been canceled. The additional references do not cure the deficiency of Yee with respect to the amended role-separated consent architecture recited in claim 1. Because dependent claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1, either directly or indirectly, they are patentable for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is patentable (Remarks, page 4).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Igata teaches that the autonomous mobile robot, that received the request from the user device, displays screens to ask the clerk to carry out picking-up of merchandise and the checking-out process including areas for the clerk to input data such as the item availability and item price (see Igata, [0150], [0057] and Figs.6 & 8). Accordingly, Yee in view of Igata teach the amended independent claims and dependent claims 3-5 are taught by the cited references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Heinla et al. (US 9,741,010 B1) teaches a delivery system using a mobile robot.
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 ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights