DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are amended. Claims 1-20 filed January 14, 2026 are pending and are hereby examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, all of which are statutory. Claims 1-20 are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1, 11, and 16 recite an abstract idea of managing transaction statuses with designations.
The independent claims 1, 11, and 16 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
… configured to receive registration of commodities in a plurality of customer transactions at a store;
… for a store attendant to monitor retail transactions at the store and perform attendant checking operations prior to settlement of customer transactions;
… at which a customer can settle a customer transaction after an attendant checking operation is performed for the customer transaction, wherein the attendant terminal includes:
… for displaying information to an attendant monitoring retail transactions;
… for reading barcodes displayed on a… of a customer;
…
…
cause… listing present transaction statuses for a plurality of customer transactions managed by the…;
receive a first-type designation or a second-type designation of a specific transaction in the plurality of customer transactions; and
cause… after the receiving of either the first-type designation or the second-type designation… displaying transaction information of the specific transaction corresponding to the received first-type or second-type designation and permitting confirmation of an attendant checking operation for the specific transaction when the first-type designation is received and not permitting confirmation of the attendant checking operation when the second-type designation is received;
send an attendant checking confirmation notification via… that causes… to update an attendant checking flag associated with the specific transaction prior to a start of a settlement process for the specific transaction…
7. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, managing transaction statuses with designations falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
8. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites managing transactions with designations with generally recited computer elements such as a transaction management server, attendant terminal, payment register, attendant terminal, communication interface, control unit, scanner, mobile terminal, transaction management apparatus, and display screen, which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for managing transactions with designations. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
9. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a transaction management server, attendant terminal, payment register, attendant terminal, communication interface, control unit, scanner, mobile terminal, transaction management apparatus, and display screen to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
10. Regarding dependent claims 2-6, 10, 12-14, and 17-19, although these claims recite a generally recited screen, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of managing transactions with designations, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
11. Regarding dependent claim 7, although this claims recites a generally recited attendant terminal, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of managing transactions with designations, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claims 8-9, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of managing transactions with designations, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
13. Regarding dependent claim 15, although this claim recites a mobile terminal, scanner, and screen, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of managing transactions with designations, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
14. Regarding dependent claim 20, although this claim recites a mobile terminal, scanner, attendant terminal, and screen, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of managing transactions with designations, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al (US 2023/0092824) in view of Yamaguchi et al (US 2022/0405759) and Komiyama et al (US 2024/0193609).
20. Re Claims 1, 11, 16: Hayashi discloses comprising:
a transaction management server configured to receive registration of commodities in a plurality of customer transactions at a store (see [0006] virtual POS server);
an attendant terminal for a store attendant to monitor retail transactions at the store and perform attendant checking operations prior to settlement of customer transactions (see [0018] attendant terminal 6);
a payment register at which a customer can settle a customer transaction after an attendant checking operation is performed for the customer transaction, wherein the attendant terminal includes (see [0021] conventional POS terminal):
a display screen for displaying information to an attendant monitoring retail transactions (see [0019] display device);
a scanner for reading barcodes displayed on a mobile terminal of a customer (see [0046] scanner);
a communication interface connectable to a transaction management apparatus (see [0023] communication device);
and a control unit configured to (see [0050] processor 41 controls):
cause a first screen to be displayed on a display screen (see [0098] abnormality occurrence screen can be presented);
receive a first-type designation or a second-type designation of a specific transaction in the plurality of customer transactions (see [0095] processor 41 issues abnormality command by function of notification unit 414 and controls communication interface 45 to transmit abnormality command to attendant terminal 6); and
cause a second screen to be displayed on the display screen after the receiving of either the first-type designation or the second-type designation, the second screen displaying transaction information of the specific transaction corresponding to the received first-type or second-type designation and permitting confirmation of an attendant checking operation for the specific transaction when the first-type designation is received and not permitting confirmation of the attendant checking operation when the second-type designation is received see [0095] processor 41 issues abnormality command by function of notification unit 414 and controls communication interface 45 to transmit abnormality command to attendant terminal 6, see [0098] abnormality occurrence screen can be presented).
However, Hayashi fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Yamaguchi teaches:
the first screen listing present transaction statuses for a plurality of customer transactions managed by the transaction management apparatus (see [0030, 0094] statuses).
From the teaching of Yamaguchi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hayashi’s checkout device with Yamaguchi’s teaching of statuses in order for “… a sales management system (see Yamaguchi [0002]).”
However, Hayashi and Yamaguchi fail to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Komiyama teaches:
send an attendant checking confirmation notification via the communication interface to the transaction management apparatus that causes the transaction management apparatus to update an attendant checking flag associated with the specific transaction prior to a start of a settlement process for the specific transaction at a payment register (see [0081, 0085, 0086] attendant check flags).
From the teaching of Komiyama, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hayashi’s checkout device with Yamaguchi’s teaching of statuses and Komiyama’s teaching of attendant checking flag in order for “… permitting customers themselves to register merchandise for purchase on the sales floor… (see Komiyama [0003]).”
21. Re Claims 2, 12, 17: Hayashi discloses wherein the second screen includes a button for confirmation of the attendant checking operation when the first-type designation is received (see [0033-0035, 0039, 0080] various buttons).
22. Re Claims 3, 13, 18: Hayashi discloses wherein the button is displayed on the second screen in a non-selectable state when the second-type designation is received (see [0033-0035, 0039, 0080] various buttons).
23. Re Claim 4: Hayashi discloses wherein the button is not displayed on the second screen when the second-type designation is received (see [0033-0035, 0039, 0080] various buttons).
24. Re Claims 5-6, 14, 19: Hayashi discloses wherein the transaction information displayed on the second screen is editable via the second screen when the first-type designation is received, and wherein the transaction information displayed on the second screen is not editable via the second screen when the second-type designation is received (see Fig. 11 can cancel).
25. Re Claim 7: Hayashi discloses wherein the first-type designation is an entry of a transaction code at the attendant terminal (see [0019-0020] codes).
26. Re Claim 8: Hayashi discloses wherein the entry is a manual typing of the transaction code (see [0019] table terminal can be used so typing).
27. Re Claim 9: Hayashi discloses wherein the entry is a scanning of an encoded transaction code (see [0029] scan store entry code).
28. Re Claim 10: Hayashi discloses wherein the second-type designation is a selection of a customer transaction from the first screen (see [0011] selection screen).
29. Re Claim 15: Hayashi discloses wherein the first-type designation is a reading of a barcode displayed on the mobile terminal of the customer with the scanner, the barcode encoding a transaction code of the specific transaction, and the second-type designation is a selection of a customer transaction from the first screen (see [0019-0022, 0034] barcode).
30. Re Claim 20: Hayashi discloses wherein the attendant terminal further includes a scanner for reading barcodes displayed on a mobile terminal of the customer, the first-type designation is a reading of a barcode displayed on the mobile terminal of the customer with the scanner, the barcode encoding a transaction code of the specific transaction, and the second-type designation is a selection of a customer transaction from the first screen (see [0019-0022, 0034] barcode).
Examiner Notes
31. The Examiner suggests mirroring all of the independent claims first to include all of the hardware elements in claims 16 and 11 together (display screen, scanner, transaction management server, attendant terminal, payment register). Then, the Examiner suggests incorporating how they are communicating. The Examiner suggests clarifying what a first-type designation or second-type designation means, and what is meant by transaction status. Then, the Examiner suggests incorporating dependent claims 6 (dependent on 5), 15, and 20 together into the independent claims.
32. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
Response to Arguments
33. Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/26 have been fully considered and are not found to be convincing, therefore the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained. With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, new prior art was used to address the new claim amendments.
a) Argument #1: Applicant argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 (improvement to technology)
34. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to improving the functioning of the computer/technology/technical field, the claims recite the additional elements of a transaction management server, attendant terminal, payment register, attendant terminal, communication interface, control unit, scanner, mobile terminal, transaction management apparatus, and display screen, and they are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore are merely using computer processing components for managing transaction statuses with designations. After further review of the Specification, there is no disclosure of technical enhancements to any of the computing components, as in multiple instances of the Specification it discloses generally recited elements. Interpreting the claims in view of the Specification, the claims recite the judicial exception are mere instructions to apply the exception of managing transaction statuses with designations (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The elements recited above do not recite and are not directed to any elements or functions that improve underlying technology.
35. According to MPEP 2106.05(a), it states: “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer).”
36. Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, the additional elements of a transaction management server, attendant terminal, payment register, attendant terminal, communication interface, control unit, scanner, mobile terminal, transaction management apparatus, and display screen, i.e., that are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem of managing transaction statuses with designations. The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., managing transaction statuses with designations, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field. Therefore, the claims do not integrate into a practical application either by improvement to a computer/technology/technical field.
37. The claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of managing transaction statuses with designations. The applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, the Specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems or technology. The applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
Conclusion
38. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Xia et al (An Intelligent Self-Service Vending System for Smart Retail, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
39. 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).
40. 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.
41. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
42. 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.
43. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
44. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627