Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply dated 12/16/2025, claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended and claims 2-3, 6-7, and 16 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4-5, and 9-15, and 17-20 are currently pending and being examined in this response.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been considered but are not found to be persuasive. Applicant has argued that the claims provide for a practical application of the before identified abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees. The claimed additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions, a camera taking images, etc.) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In regards to the 102/103 rejections:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 102/103 rejections have been considered and are found to be persuasive in part, accordingly the previous 102 rejection has been withdrawn, however they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection found below.
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, 4-5, and 9-15, and 17-20 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1, 4-5, and 9-15, and 17-20 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
In regard to claims 1, 4-5, and 9-15, and 17-20 as indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A point-of-sale device comprising a display screen and a processor wherein the processor is configured to: receive a transaction status update and image data corresponding to one of one or more self-checkout terminals, wherein the transaction status update relates to an age-restricted sale preventing completion of a transaction via the one of the one or more of self-checkout terminals, and wherein the image data corresponds to identification information of a customer captured by a camera of the one of the one or more self-checkout terminals; generate a transaction status icon corresponding to the transaction status update; display, via the display screen, a self-checkout monitoring panel comprising one or more status tiles, wherein each of the one or more status tiles corresponds to one of the one or more self- checkout terminals, and wherein each of the status tiles is configured to display the transaction status icon of the corresponding self-checkout terminal; display, via the display screen, upon receiving a self-checkout terminal selection input, one or more transaction control commands and at least a portion of the image data in a detail view panel; receive a transaction control command selection corresponding to an approve command of the one or more transaction control commands; and transmit, upon receiving a transaction control command selection, the approve command to the corresponding self-checkout terminal to configure the one of the one or more self-checkout terminals to complete the transaction.
Claim 9 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A self-checkout monitoring system comprising one or more self- checkout terminals, a site controller, and one or more point-of-sale devices, wherein the site controller comprises a processor configured to :receive a transaction status update and image data corresponding to a first self-checkout terminal, wherein the transaction status update relates to an age-restricted sale preventing completion of a transaction via the one of the one or more of self-checkout terminals, and wherein the image data corresponds to identification information of a customer captured by a camera of the one of the one or more self-checkout terminals; transmit the transaction status update and the image data to each of the one or more point- of-sale devices; receive a transaction control command from a first point-of-sale device, wherein the transaction control command is an approve command; and transmit the transaction control command to the first self-checkout terminal to configure the one of the one or more self-checkout terminals to complete the transaction.
Claim 17 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A self-checkout terminal comprising a processor and a camera, wherein the processor is configured to: generate a transaction status update based on a transaction event, wherein the transaction status update relates to an age-restricted sale preventing completion of a transaction via the self- checkout terminals; capture, via the camera, image data corresponding to identification information of a customer; provide the transaction status update and the image data to a site controller; receive, from the site controller, a transaction control command corresponding to the transaction status update, wherein the transaction control command is an approve command; and configure the self-checkout terminal to complete the transaction based on the transaction control command.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor, display, self-checkout terminal, site controller, camera, and POS devices”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “a processor, display, self-checkout terminal, site controller, camera, and POS devices”, the above italicized limitations in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite 7 additional elements – “a processor, display, self-checkout terminal, site controller, camera, and POS devices”. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor, display, self-checkout terminal, site controller, camera, and POS devices” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background and specification does not provide any indication that the “a processor, display, self-checkout terminal, site controller, camera, and POS devices” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0090064 A1 to Kaneko (“Kaneko”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0201703 A1 to Marquez (“Marquez”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0076225 A1 to Yatagiri (“Yatagiri”)
In regards to claims 1, 9, and 17, Kaneko discloses the following limitations:
A point-of-sale device comprising a display screen and a processor wherein the processor is configured to: (see at least Kaneko Abstract)
A self-checkout monitoring system comprising one or more self-checkout terminals, a site controller, and one or more point-of-sale devices, (see at least Kaneko Figure 1 )
wherein the site controller comprises a processor configured to: receive a transaction status update corresponding to a first self-checkout terminal; (see at least Kaneko ¶ 0196 “When the processor 31 executes the information processing based on the transaction processing program AP1, the computer having the processor 31 as a central part functions as a requesting unit.”)
configure the self-checkout terminal based on the transaction control command (see at least Kaneko ¶ 0027 “The server is configured to generate a data record including the product code and transmit a settlement request to a settlement server upon receiving the settlement instruction from the mobile POS apparatus. When a settlement non-completion response is received from the settlement server, the server stores transaction data including a first identifier for the settlement request and a second identifier for the transaction data in a database and causes the display of the mobile POS apparatus to display a code symbol encoding or otherwise representing the second identifier.”)
receive a transaction status update corresponding to one of one or more self-checkout terminals; (see at least Kaneko ¶ 0196 “when the processor 331 executes the information processing based on the transaction processing program AP1, the computer having the processor 31 as a central part functions as a requesting unit”)
Kaneko discloses transaction status updates and displaying for the user, and further discloses a monitoring terminal (see at least ¶¶ 0029, 0054, 0143 and 0197), however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
generate a transaction status icon corresponding to the transaction status update; a self-checkout monitoring panel comprising one or more status tiles, wherein each of the one or more status tiles corresponds to one of the one or more self-checkout terminals, and wherein each of the status tiles is configured to display the transaction status icon of the corresponding self-checkout terminal;
display, via the display screen, upon receiving a self-checkout terminal selection input, one or more transaction control commands in a detail view panel; and receive a transaction control command selection corresponding to an approve command of the one or more transaction control commands; transmit, upon receiving a transaction control command selection, the approve command to the corresponding self-checkout terminal to configure the one of the one or more self-checkout terminals to complete the transaction.
The Examiner provides Marquez to teach the following limitations:
generate a transaction status icon corresponding to the transaction status update; display a self-checkout monitoring panel comprising one or more status tiles, wherein each of the one or more status tiles corresponds to one of the one or more self-checkout terminals, and wherein each of the status tiles is configured to display the transaction status icon of the corresponding self-checkout terminal; (Marquez teaches a POS monitoring system and method by which a monitoring UI is provided for a user to monitor the transaction status of each of the monitored POS lanes/terminals and updating the UI with a status update on status change. See at least Figure 4 and ¶ 0045)
display, via the display screen, upon receiving a self-checkout terminal selection input, one or more transaction control commands in a detail view panel; and receive a transaction control command selection corresponding to an approve command of the one or more transaction control commands; transmit, upon receiving a transaction control command selection, the approve command to the corresponding self-checkout terminal to configure the one of the one or more self-checkout terminals to complete the transaction. (Marquez teaches a POS monitoring system and method where a user may select a POS for a detailed view of what the status is, and issue commands to the POS. see at least ¶¶ 0027, 0034-0035 and 0043)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kaneko the teachings of Marquez since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The combination of Kaneko and Marquez teach using video to conference between a self-checkout and a management terminal to override an exception such as an alcohol sale (see Marquez Figure 7b and ¶ 0027) however do not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
and image data; wherein the transaction status update relates to an age-restricted sale preventing completion of a transaction via the one of the one or more self-checkout terminals, and wherein the image data corresponds to identification information of a customer captured by a camera of the one of the one or more self-checkout terminals; receiving a portion of the image data
The Examiner provides Yatagiri to teach the following limitations:
and image data; wherein the transaction status update relates to an age-restricted sale preventing completion of a transaction via the one of the one or more self-checkout terminals, and wherein the image data corresponds to identification information of a customer captured by a camera of the one of the one or more self-checkout terminals; receiving a portion of the image data (Yatagiri teaches a system and method of operating a remote self-checkout including providing for verifying an ID for an age-restricted sale such as alcohol via an image that the customer scans for review by a clerk. See at least Yatagiri Abstract and ¶ 0023 “According to one example, a first user interaction may include scanning an item, and a second user interaction may include providing additional information in relation to the item. A second user interaction that may be required as part of the self-checkout process may include or more of the above example user interactions. … Another example second interaction may be a user input of the guest user's age or a user input of an image of the guest user's ID, such that the guest user may be authorized to purchase an age-restricted item. For example, the second interaction may be performed by the guest user or by an administrative user.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the combination of Kaneko and Marquez the teachings of Yatagiri since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 4, Kaneko does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the detail view panel further comprises at least one of product name, product quantity, and amount due.
The Examiner provides Marquez to teach the following limitations:
wherein the detail view panel further comprises at least one of product name, product quantity, and amount due. (see at least Marquez Figure 7A and ¶ 0037)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kaneko the teachings of Marquez since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 5, Kaneko discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor receives the transaction status update via a site controller. (see at least Kaneko ¶¶ 0027)
In regards to claim 10, Kaneko discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor of the site controller is further configured to generate a transaction record corresponding to the transaction control command, the first self-checkout terminal, and the first point-of-sale device. (see at least Kaneko ¶ 0027 “the server is configured to generate a data record including the product code and transmit a settlement request to a settlement server upon receiving the settlement instruction from the mobile POS apparatus. When a settlement non-completion response is received from the settlement server, the server stores transaction data including a first identifier for the settlement request and a second identifier for the transaction data in a database and causes the display of the mobile POS apparatus to display a code symbol encoding or otherwise representing the second identifier.”)
In regards to claim 11, Kaneko discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor of the site controller is further configured to transmit the transaction record to a store manager device. (see at least Kaneko ¶ 0097 “The member code for a non-member may be common to a plurality of customers or may be different. Specifically, the processor 11a transmits the notification data including the terminal code and the member code from the wireless unit 11d to the access point 2a addressed to the virtual POS server 30. This notification data is transmitted to the virtual POS server 30 by the access point 2a and the communication network 2. Then, the communication interface 34 of the virtual POS server 30 receives the notification data. The communication interface 34 supplies the received notification data to the processor 31. In this way, the processor 31 is notified of the login request. In the following description of another notification, the detailed description as described above will be omitted.”)
In regards to claim 12, Kaneko discloses the following limitations:
wherein the store manager device is located remotely relative to the one or more self-checkout terminals and the one or more point-of-sale devices. (see at least Kaneko Figure 1, Figure 2, and ¶¶ 0030 and 0034)
In regards to claim 13, Kaneko discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor of the site controller is further configured to transmit the transaction status update to a handheld terminal. (see at least Kaneko Figure 1, and ¶ 0283 “A hand-held information terminal, such as a smartphone brought to the store by the customer M1, may be used in place of the cart terminal 10 in some examples.”)
In regards to claim 14, Kaneko discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor of the site controller is further configured to: receive a handheld transaction control command from the handheld terminal; and transmit the handheld transaction control command to the first self-checkout terminal. See at least Figure 1, ¶ 0283 and Abstract “A hand-held information terminal, such as a smartphone brought to the store by the customer M1, may be used in place of the cart terminal 10 in some examples.”; “The processor controls the wireless communication interface to transmit a product code read by the code reader and a settlement instruction based on a user operation on the user interface. The server is configured to generate a data record including the product code and transmit a settlement request to a settlement server upon receiving the settlement instruction.”)
In regards to claim 15, Kaneko discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor of the site controller is further configured to generate a transaction record corresponding to the handheld transaction control command (see at least Kaneko ¶ 0196), the first self-checkout terminal, and the handheld terminal.(see at least Kaneko ¶ 0027)
In regards to claim 18, Kaneko discloses the following limitations:
wherein the site controller receives the transaction control command from a point-of-sale device. (see at least Kaneko Figure 12 and ¶ 0242 “As ACT 62, the processor 31 instructs the cart terminal 10 to display a scan screen. The scan screen is a screen for instructing the self-service checkout machine 50 to acquire accounting data. The processor 31 thereafter returns to the standby state of ACT 24 to ACT 26 in FIG. 12”)
In regards to claim 19, Kaneko discloses the following limitations:
wherein the transaction event is an age-restricted sale. (see at least Kaneko ¶ 0046 “if the flag information indicating whether or not a certificate needs to be issued is “0”, this indicates that there is no need to print out a certificate or the like. Therefore, the flag information indicates that there is no need to print out a certificate. Alcohol and tobacco are age-restricted commodities, and the response of the clerk when selling such a commodity is to check the age of the purchaser. If the flag information for an age check is “0”, the flag information indicates that there is no age restriction.”)
In regards to claim 20, Kaneko discloses the following limitations:
wherein the transaction event is a help request. (see at least Kaneko ¶ 0054 “The clerk terminal 70 is an information processing terminal that performs information processing for supporting work performed by the clerk M2. The clerk terminal 70 is, for example, a portable information terminal carried by the clerk M2 in charge of the maintenance of the cart C. The clerk terminal 70 is, for example, a monitoring terminal for monitoring the operation status of the store system 1. A plurality of clerk terminals 70 may be included in the store system 1. Then, in this case, the clerk terminal 70 may include a plurality of types.”)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0090064 A1 to Kaneko (“Kaneko”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0201703 A1 to Marquez (“Marquez”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0076225 A1 to Yatagiri (“Yatagiri”), in view of Official Notice.
In regards to claim 8, Kaneko does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further configured to display a utility panel, wherein the utility panel is configured to display: one or more selectable filter tiles; and a subset of the status tiles displayed in the self-checkout monitoring panel, wherein the subset of the status tiles are displayed according to a filter selection corresponding to one of the one or more selectable filter tiles.
The Examiner provides Marquez to teach the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further configured to display a utility panel, wherein the utility panel is configured to display: (Marquez teaches providing a utility screen including all recent issues/status changes for affected POS terminals. see at least Marquez Figure 8)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kaneko the teachings of Marquez since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Further the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to filter a data set in order to see pertinent information, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kaneko the teachings of Official Notice since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627