DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on July 3, 2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7, 9-10 and 12 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-12 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.”
Regarding Claims 1 and 11-12, the claims describe a product confirmation method for a product to be a payment target which is a mental process (observation/evaluation) and a method of organizing a human activity (commercial interaction-sales). The limitations on acquiring product identification, acquiring an image, reading appearance information and executing processing, could be all performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. Other than reciting a processor, a reading apparatus and a storage unit, nothing in the claims precludes the steps for being performed in the human mind and/or the help of paper and pencil. All the steps of “acquiring”, “reading” and “executing”, recite functions directed to sales activities and commercial interactions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Generic computer components performing generic computer functions alone, do not amount to significantly more that an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process and method of organizing a human activity grouping. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding generic computer elements would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's product confirmation in the general field of sales and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination 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 element of using computers to perform the acquiring, reading and executing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. There are no improvements to technology or any new technology involved. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components, the processing steps and the information used. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Miyata (JP 2010/237886A).
Claim 1
Miyata discloses the following limitations:
A product confirmation apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: acquire
from a product to be a payment target, product identification information of the product through a reading apparatus; (see at least paragraphs 0020-comodity code reading operation by a scanner and 0024-the self-check-out apparatus scans and reads a barcode of a commodity).
acquire a first image being an image generated when the reading apparatus reads the product identification information, and including the product; (see at least paragraph 0024-The self-checkout POS apparatus extracts a three-dimensional image of the commodity photographed by a camera).
read, from a storage unit storing appearance information indicating an appearance of the product and the product identification information of the product in association with each other, the appearance information relevant to the product identification information acquired; (see at least paragraphs 0037-0038- The self POS checks whether or not there is a basic figure stored in association with the barcode in data received from the PLU server. The PLU server stores the basic figure and the number of samples received from the self POS in association with the barcode).
and execute first processing when a difference between the appearance information read and appearance information of the product based on the first image acquired satisfies a first criterion, wherein at least a part of pieces of information stored in the storage unit is generated by use of the product identification information acquired and the first image acquired (see at least paragraphs 0040-0041-The recalculated basic figure and the number of samples are sent to the PLU server together with the barcode data).
Claim 2
Furthermore, Miyata discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to update the storage unit by use of the product identification information acquired and the first image acquired. (see at least paragraphs 0040-0041 and 0059).
Claim 3
Furthermore, Miyata discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the storage unit to store a plurality of pieces of the appearance information regarding the one product, and at least one of reading processing of reading the appearance information and the first processing is performed when information stored in the storage unit satisfies a second criterion.(see at least paragraphs 0043-0044 and claim 10).
Claim 4
Furthermore, Miyata discloses the following limitations:
wherein the second criterion includes a fact that pieces of the appearance information relevant to the product identification information acquired are stored in the storage unit equal to or more than a first number. (see at least paragraphs 0040-0044 and claim 10).
Claim 5
Furthermore, Miyata discloses the following limitations:
wherein the second criterion includes a fact that statistical information in a feature value space of the plurality of pieces of appearance information satisfies a third criterion. (see at least paragraphs 0040-0044 and claim 10).
Claim 6
Furthermore, Miyata discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform a payment unit that performs payment processing of the product when the first criterion is not satisfied or when the second criterion is satisfied.(see at least paragraph 0062).
Claim 7
Furthermore, Miyata discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to disable the appearance information satisfying a fourth criterion in a feature value space.(see at least paragraphs 0040-0044 and 0062).
Claim 8
Furthermore, Miyata discloses the following limitations:
wherein the fourth criterion is at least one of a fact that the appearance information exists in a region where density is equal to or less than a criterion value in the feature value space, and a fact that a distance from an average position of the plurality of pieces of appearance information to the appearance information in the feature value space is equal to or more than a criterion value. (see at least paragraphs 0035, 0043 and claim 10).
Claim 9
Furthermore, Miyata discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: also acquire a second image being an image generated at timing when the reading apparatus does not read the product identification information, and being an image capturing the product for which the reading apparatus has read the product identification information; and update the storage unit by use of the second image. (see at least paragraph 0059).
Claim 10
Furthermore, Miyata discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first processing is output processing of warning information (see at least claim 6, paragraphs 0043-0044 and 0076).
As per claims 11-12, claims 11-12 recite substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and are therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Connell (US 2009/0272801A1) in at least paragraph 0009 discloses a system for determining identity of an item based on barcode and image data.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd A Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights