DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims1-19 as originally filed are currently pending and are considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 5, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 recite subject allowable over the prior art of record.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
a checkout medium with a built-in wireless tag;
a registration component configured to register a merchandise item in one transaction and dispense the checkout medium where payment information for settlement for the merchandise item in the one transaction that is registered is written in the wireless tag;
a checkout component configured to read the payment information from the wireless tag in the checkout medium, carry out settlement for the merchandise item in the one transaction that is registered, and
rewrite the payment information to represent a first state where there is no unpaid amount if the settlement is complete; and
a reporting component configured to give a report if the payment information in the wireless tag represents a second state where there is an unpaid amount when the checkout medium passes therethrough.
The steps of the method, as drafted, provide a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers commercial interactions such as sales activities or a business relationship between a customer and retailer, which would include writing payment information onto a wireless tag, for example, reading payment information from the wireless tag to carryout settlement for merchandise.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers advertising or
marketing or sales activities or a business relationship, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of
Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not
recite an additional element. As such, there is nothing recited that can be considered a practical
application or significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements include:
A checkout medium with a built-in wireless tag, described as a generic device for storing data, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
A registration component configured to dispense a checkout medium, is interpreted as mere automation of a manual process of dispensing cards with stored information, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
A checkout component configured to read payment information, is interpreted as electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, i.e. checkout medium, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
A reporting component configured to give a report, which is interpreted as electronic recordkeeping.
These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is patent ineligible.
Claim 2 includes the additional elements of a image capture component configured to be able to capture an image, which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to an extra-solution activity. A management component configured to link and store payment information and face image, which is also recited at a high level of generality of electronic recordkeeping (i.e., as a generic processors performing a generic computer functions) and amount to 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.
Similarly, the claim does 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 the image capture component and management component amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. When considering the claim as a whole, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims also are patent ineligible. For example, claim 3 includes the step discarding the face image in response to completion of the settlement which further describes the business relationship between the customer and retailer. Claims 4-8 further describe the abstract idea with limitations directed to providing a report for an unpaid amount, describing the checkout medium, defining the merchandise checkout system as a point of sale, including a wireless tag reader into the checkout component and reporting the payment information on a screen.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites: a reporting component configured to give a report if the payment information in the wireless tag represents a second state where there is an unpaid amount when the checkout medium passes therethrough.
It is unclear as to where the checkout medium passes therethrough. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Perrucci, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0125171 discuses a wireless tag is integrated into a reusable bag. The tag is registered to a payment account. During a transaction, a unique identifier for the tag is wirelessly acquired from the bag and linked to the payment account. When checkout for the transaction is required, the transaction price for the transaction is charged against the linked account without requiring any additional payment screens or payment interfaces at a transaction terminal where the transaction is being processed. In an embodiment, custom use, price, item type, store type, and/or weight restrictions with respect to the transaction and registered with the tag are enforced during checkout by the transaction terminal. Abstract
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHFORD S HAYLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5106. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM with Flex.
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 Obeid can be reached at 5712703324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHFORD S HAYLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights