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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 October 2025 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea on pages 10-13. The Examiner disagrees because age estimation and verification is a common practice for any store clerk, bar tender, bouncer, or any person that sees a picture of another person or meets them in person because it is a mental process. Additionally, the concept is classified in organizing human activity because age estimation and verification is similar to commercial or legal interaction in which age estimate and verification is a legal requirement for many purchases i.e. a legal obligation and a sales activity and managing personal behavior or interactions between people because age verification is a rule required for many commercial or social interactions and following the legal rules of age estimation and verification is required to conduct the interaction. Applicant further argues on page 12 that “it is assumed that the age of the customer can be estimated more accurately” when the process begins before product registration, but the specification does not explain why this assumption is made and the Examiner is not assuming the age is more accurately estimated. The cited claim limitations do not explain or disclose a process that more accurately estimates the customer’s age through age document verification, which is not age estimation. Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application through the improved camera-based age verification technology, but the Examiner disagrees because the camera is not a part of the claimed invention and the system does not rely entirely on technology to implement the solution. For example, the customer verifies an age by inputting their age or in another case the store clerk performs the age estimation that determines whether the customer verifies their age or is required to provide an age verification document, which is standard practice to purchase an age-restricted product and in some location it is a required practice by law.
Applicant's arguments filed 3 October 2025 with respect to the 112 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claim amendments have eliminated the 112(b) rejection, but the Examiner disagrees. Additional 112 rejection are presented below.
Applicant's arguments filed 3 October 2025 with respect to the 102 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art reference of Katayama US 2019/0259014 fail to teach or disclose “receive input of identification information about a product after starting a process for estimating the age of the customer from the customer image.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 recite “determine whether the estimated age meets a predetermined condition, wherein the predetermined condition is a criterion for deciding whether to request proof of age for purchasing an age-restricted product”. The specification is silent as to “a criterion for deciding whether to request proof of age for purchasing an age-restricted product” except in [0030]-[0031] that the predetermined condition is an age at which the product can be purchased. The Examiner has interpreted this limitation to read a predetermined age. The specification and the claims fail to describe how the condition is predetermined and to what standard the predetermination occurs as well as who or what performs the predetermination. Accordingly, the claims are vague and indefinite. Claims 2-10 and 13-14 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 13 recites “determine which mode the POS terminal…wherein the POS terminal is …” but it is unclear if the information processing system is the POS or if the POS is a separate component. Accordingly, the claim is vague and indefinite because if the POS is indeed a separate component, the POS is not a component of the claimed system and limitations directed to a non-claimed component of the system would not limit the system claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 7 and 8 specify the estimation of an age occurs in response to input of the identification information about a product, but claim 1 specifies that the estimation begins prior to the registration of a product. Claim 10 only contains limitations that are already present in amended claim 1 and fail to further limit the claim scope. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a “information processing system”.
Claim 1 is directed to the concept of “age estimate and verification” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… commercial or legal interaction (age estimate and verification is a legal requirement for many purchases i.e. a legal obligation and a sales activity) and managing personal behavior or interactions between people (age verification is a rule required for many commercial interactions and following the legal rules of age estimation and verification is required to conduct the interaction)” as well as a mental process because estimating an age of a customer is a subject process that occurs mentally for a store employee particularly in claim 5 the age estimation is performed entirely by the store clerk in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claim 1 recites acquire a customer image; estimate an age of a customer from the customer image; receive input of identification information about a product after starting a process for estimating the age of the customer from the customer image; determine whether the estimated age meets a predetermined condition, wherein the predetermined condition is a criterion for deciding whether to request proof of age for purchasing an age-restricted product; display a first age verification screen requesting the customer to express the customer’s age by pressing a button displayed on the screen in response to the input of the identification information about an age- restricted product in a case where the estimated age of the customer meets the predetermined condition; display a second age verification screen requesting the customer for proof of age by presenting an age verification document in response to the input of the identification information about an age-restricted product in a case where the estimated age of the customer does not meet the predetermined condition; read an age verification document using a proof document reader in a case where the second age verification screen is displayed; verify the age from the reading result of the age verification document; in response to the customer pressing the button or reading the age verification document, permit registration of the product when age verification is completed, and cancel registration of the product when the age verification fails. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claim such as at least one memory and at least one processor, a camera installed near a point of sale terminal, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of [concept].
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of age estimation and verification using computer technology (e.g. at least one processor and memory). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 13-14 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Howard US 2023/0074732.
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 DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692