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 .
Priority
For the purpose of prior art consideration, the effective filing date of the instant application is based on the application filed in Japan on July 7th, 2023.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Whether a Claim is to a Statutory Category
In the instant case, claims 1-6 recite a device/machine; claims 7-15 recite a system/machine and claims 16-20 recite a method/process that are performing a series of functions. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention of a machine. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step2A – Prong 1: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 7 and 16) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include an enumerated “abstract idea”:
A product registration device, comprising:
A communication unit; and
a processor configured to:
receive a recognition result via the communication unit;
register a product corresponding to a product code as a sales target in a sales transaction if the recognition result specifies a single product code as the product being registered in the sales transaction;
when the recognition result specifies one or more candidate product codes for the product being registered in the sales transaction, identify a candidate product code in the recognition result having a highest degree of similarity value and check a product master database to determine whether the identified candidate product code is for a code-symbol attached product having a code symbol thereon; and
if the candidate product code having the highest degree of similarity value is for a code-symbol attached product, delay registration to permit another recognition result to be received via the communication unit.
[Emphasis added to show the bolded abstract idea being executed by unbolded additional elements that do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea]
This apparatus claim is grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test because the claims involve a series of steps for sales activities of registering a product corresponding to a product code as a sales target in a sales transaction, which is a process that is encompassed by the abstract idea of commercial or legal interactions. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47. Accordingly, claim 1 (and similarly claims 7 and 16) are found to recite abstract idea(s).
Step2A – Prong 2: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements that Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional elements of the claims such as product registration device, communication unit, processor and product master database merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the product registration device, communication unit, processor and product master database perform the steps or functions of sales activities of registering a product corresponding to a product code as a sales target in a sales transaction. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer (or technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as product registration device, communication unit, processor and product master database) performing functions of receiving, registering, identifying, checking, determining and delaying that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step2B: Does the Claim Amount to Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element analysis of Step 2A Prong 2 is equally applied to Step 2B. “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis.” MPEP 2106.05(d). The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Exemplary claim 1 recites the following limitations that the courts have found to be WURC:
Claim 1 includes limitations relating to receiving/transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) where courts found to be WURC - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
Claim 1 recites registering a product/ delaying registration. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) where courts found to be WURC - Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Claim 1 recites identifying a product code from among one or more candidate product codes. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) where courts found to be WURC - Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
Claim 1 recites permitting another recognition result to be received – See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) where courts found to be WURC - iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Accordingly, when viewed alone and in ordered combination, these additional elements are not found to recite significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Independent claim 7 describes an system to perform functions of registering, providing, object recognition processing, receiving, identifying, checking, determining and delaying relating to sales activities of registering a product corresponding to a product code as a sales target in a sales transaction without additional elements beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as a product registration system, point-of-sale terminal, imaging device, edge device and product master database that provide significantly more than the abstract idea of commercial or legal interactions through sales activities of executing a registering process for registering the product in a sales transaction as noted above regarding claim 1. Therefore, this independent claim is also not patent eligible.
Independent claim 16 describes a method to perform functions of receiving, registering, identifying, checking, determining and delaying relating to sales activities of registering a product corresponding to a product code as a sales target in a sales transaction without additional elements beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as a communication unit and product master database that provide significantly more than the abstract idea of commercial or legal interactions through sales activities of executing a registering process for registering the product in a sales transaction as noted above regarding claim 1. Therefore, this independent claim is also not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-15 and 17-20 further describes the abstract idea of commercial or legal interactions. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-15 and 17-20 add displaying, suggesting, reading, image recognition processing, waiting, including, storing, determining and object recognition steps that are executed by a product master database, processor, point-of-sale terminal, imaging unit, edge device, object detection model, feature extraction model, matching dictionary, store server and as disclosed in independent claims 1, 7 and 16, however these additional steps remain disclosed at a high level of generality and do not amount to more than mere computer implementation of the abstract idea, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8-15 and 17-20 are also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of these claims on ineligible independent claims 1, 7 and 16 also renders dependent claims 2-6, 8-15 and 17-20 as not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumura (US 2016/0086148 A1) in view of Kobayashi (US 2022/0051215 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and 16, Katsumura teaches:
A product registration device/ method (See Katsumura ¶ [0036] – the merchandise item registration apparatus), comprising:
…; and
a processor (See Katsumura ¶ [0059] – The CPU performs respective calculation processes, and controls the respective components) configured to:
receive a recognition result (See Katsumura ¶ [0125] – If the object detecting unit has successfully recognized the object that is the merchandise item, the process moves on) …;
register a product corresponding to a product code as a sales target in a sales transaction if the recognition result specifies a single product code as the product being registered in the sales transaction (See Katsumura ¶ [0043] – Based on the merchandise item ID [product code] sent from the merchandise item identification device, the POS terminal records information about sales registration of the merchandise item corresponding to the merchandise item ID [product code], such as the merchandise classification, the trade name, and the unit price of the merchandise item, into a sales master file and [0243] – an item barcode may also be read);
when the recognition result specifies one or more candidate product codes for the product being registered in the sales transaction (As the specification of the instant application associates product codes with characteristic feature data of products to be identified, see Katsumura ¶ [0043] – Based on the merchandise item ID [product code] sent from the merchandise item identification device, the POS terminal records information about sales registration of the merchandise item corresponding to the merchandise item ID [product code], such as the merchandise classification, the trade name, and the unit price of the merchandise item, into a sales master file and [0074] - reads the surface states such as the color shades and the surface irregularities of the available merchandise items as feature amounts, and compares the feature amounts with the feature amount of an imaged merchandise item, to calculate the degrees of similarity between the imaged merchandise item and the available merchandise items recorded in the feature amount file), identify a candidate product code in the recognition result having a highest degree of similarity value (See Katsumura ¶ [0081-0082] – determines an available merchandise item or selects candidate merchandise items in accordance with satisfied conditions … the condition for extracting candidates for the object in a frame image from the available merchandise items recorded in the feature amount file and [0085-0090] - the determination notifying unit causes the display to display a determination screen indicating that the available merchandise item satisfying the condition X is uniquely determined to be the merchandise item captured by the camera, wherein said condition X shows the highest degree of similarity by example compared to conditions Y and Z) and check a product master database to determine whether the identified candidate product code is for a code-symbol attached product having a code symbol thereon (See Katsumura ¶ [0096-0099] – accepts the available merchandise item in the selected photographed image as the determined merchandise item corresponding to the merchandise item … the merchandise item ID [product code] read by the information outputting unit from the feature amount file [product master database] may be reported directly to the POS terminal, or the trade name with which the merchandise item ID can be identified, a merchandise item image [code symbol] may be reported to the POS terminal and [0243] - a bar code or the like printed on a merchandise item may be read so that the merchandise item can be identified); and
if the candidate product code having the highest degree of similarity value is for a code-symbol attached product, delay registration to permit another recognition result to be received … (See Katsumura ¶ [0132-0137] – the camera starts capturing a merchandise item image [code symbol] … a series of procedures in which the operator holds a merchandise item in front of the camera through the read window, and the merchandise item identification device successfully detects the object that is the merchandise item … the similarity calculating unit reads a feature amount of the merchandise item from the image showing all or part of the merchandise item ... having a degree of similarity equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value, and retrieves the trade name and the unit price of the merchandise item … determines whether the determined merchandise item matches a merchandise item provisionally registered [delay registration] in the current transaction … outputs the merchandise item ID and the like of the determined available merchandise item to the POS terminal, and causes the POS terminal to correct the provisional registration of the merchandise item. The sales canceling unit of the POS terminal corrects (cancels) the provisional registration of the merchandise item based on the merchandise item ID [product code] and [0243] - a bar code or the like printed on a merchandise item may be read so that the merchandise item can be identified).
While Katsumura teaches a point of sale register device that recognizes products through captured images of product data (Katsumura ¶ [0043] and [0074]), Katsumura does not explicitly teach that said recognition result is from a communication unit. This is taught by Kobayashi (See Kobayashi ¶ [0019] – POS terminals connected to image recognition devices connected to edge servers via a communication network). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the captured image product registration process of Katsumura the use of image recognition through a communication network connecting multiple devices as taught by Kobayashi to improve accuracy in recognizing commodities having only small differences in feature data when shown in a captured image (Kobayashi ¶ [0101]), thereby increasing the accuracy of the captured image checkout process of Katsumura.
Regarding Claim 2, 8 and 17, modified Katsumura teaches:
The product registration device/ system/ method according to claim 1, 7 and 16, wherein the product master database includes a code-symbol attached flag value associated with each product code (See Katsumura ¶ [0043] – Based on the merchandise item ID [product code] sent from the merchandise item identification device, the POS terminal records information about sales registration of the merchandise item corresponding to the merchandise item ID [product code], such as the merchandise classification, the trade name, and the unit price of the merchandise item, into a sales master file, [0143] - the merchandise item identification device switches on a discount flag. At this point, a red price tag [flag value] has been attached to the merchandise item, and the merchandise item is to be discounted).
Regarding Claim 3, 10 and 18, modified Katsumura teaches:
The product registration device/ system/ method according to claim 1, 7 and 16, wherein the processor is further configured to cause a display screen to display a confirmation screen when the identified candidate product code in the recognition result is determined to be a code-symbol attached product, the confirmation screen suggesting an operator check the product for a code symbol (See Katsumura ¶ [0095] – the input acquiring unit accepts an input operation indicating final confirmation that the merchandise item corresponding to a displayed photographed image is the determined merchandise item (this input operation is also the confirming operation). In a case where the input acquiring unit has accepted a confirming operation, the determination notifying unit causes the display to display the determination screen, [0096-0099] – accepts the available merchandise item in the selected photographed image as the determined merchandise item corresponding to the merchandise item … the merchandise item ID [product code] read by the information outputting unit from the feature amount file [product master database] may be reported directly to the POS terminal, or the trade name with which the merchandise item ID can be identified, a merchandise item image [code symbol] may be reported to the POS terminal and [0243] - a bar code or the like printed on a merchandise item may be read so that the merchandise item can be identified).
Regarding Claim 4 and 11, modified Katsumura teaches:
The product registration device/ system according to claim 1 and 7, wherein
the recognition result indicates whether it was obtained by a code symbol reading or an image recognition processing, and
the processor is configured to wait for a predetermined time before displaying of a candidate selection screen if the recognition result was obtained by the image recognition processing (See Katsumura ¶ [0132-0139] – the camera starts capturing a merchandise item image [code symbol] … a series of procedures in which the operator holds a merchandise item in front of the camera through the read window, and the merchandise item identification device successfully detects the object that is the merchandise item … determines whether the determined merchandise item matches a merchandise item provisionally registered [wait for a predetermined time] in the current transaction … outputs the merchandise item ID and the like of the determined available merchandise item to the POS terminal, and causes the POS terminal to correct the provisional registration of the merchandise item. The sales canceling unit of the POS terminal corrects (cancels) the provisional registration of the merchandise item based on the merchandise item ID [product code] … causes the display to display a screen including a photographed image of the determined merchandise item … the operator can cancel merchandise item registration, without any keyboard operation and [0243] - a bar code or the like printed on a merchandise item may be read so that the merchandise item can be identified).
Regarding Claim 5, 12 and 19, modified Katsumura teaches:
The product registration device/ system/ method according to claim 1, 7 and 16, wherein the processor is further configured to cause a candidate product selection screen to be displayed when the recognition result specifies one or more candidate product codes and the candidate product code having the highest degree of similarity value is not for a code-symbol attached product (See Katsumura ¶ [0074] – similarity based on item color shade features, which are not a code symbol, [0093-0094] - displays the photographed images and the trade names of the candidate merchandise items in descending order of similarity and [0096] - accepts a selecting operation on one photographed image among the photographed images of the candidate merchandise items displayed on the display).
Regarding Claim 6, 13 and 20, modified Katsumura teaches:
The product registration device/ system/ method according to claim 5, 12 and 19, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the candidate product selection screen to include only candidate product codes for those products that are not code-symbol attached products (See Katsumura ¶ [0074] – similarity based on item color shade features, which are not a code symbol, [0083] - the available merchandise items satisfying the condition Z are not determined merchandise items but candidates for the merchandise item captured by the camera. By extracting the available merchandise item satisfying the condition Z from the available merchandise items recorded in the feature amount file, the similarity determining unit extracts candidates for the available merchandise item corresponding to the imaged merchandise item, [0093-0094] - displays the photographed images and the trade names of the candidate merchandise items in descending order of similarity and [0096] - accepts a selecting operation on one photographed image among the photographed images of the candidate merchandise items displayed on the display).
Regarding Claim 7, Katsumura teaches:
A product registration system (See Katsumura ¶ [0036] – the merchandise item registration apparatus), comprising:
a point-of-sale terminal for registering products in a sales transaction (See Katsumura ¶ [0043] – the POS terminal records information about sales registration of the merchandise item corresponding to the merchandise item ID);
an imaging device connected to the point-of-sale terminal and configured to provide a recognition result of a product being registered in the sales transaction (See Katsumura ¶ [0043] – the merchandise item included in an image captured by the camera corresponds is displayed on the display. The merchandise item identification device further notifies the POS terminal of the merchandise item ID of the indicated merchandise item… the POS terminal records information about sales registration of the merchandise item corresponding to the merchandise item ID); and
…, wherein
the point-of-sale terminal is configured to:
receive the recognition result from the imaging device (See Katsumura ¶ [0124-0125] – performs an object recognition process on the frame image acquired by the image acquiring unit);
register a product corresponding to a product code as a sales target in the sales transaction if the recognition result specifies a single product code as the product being registered (See Katsumura ¶ [0043] – Based on the merchandise item ID [product code] sent from the merchandise item identification device, the POS terminal records information about sales registration of the merchandise item corresponding to the merchandise item ID [product code], such as the merchandise classification, the trade name, and the unit price of the merchandise item, into a sales master file and [0243] – an item barcode may also be read);
when the recognition result specifies one or more candidate product codes for the product being registered in the sales transaction (As the specification of the instant application associates product codes with characteristic feature data of products to be identified, see Katsumura ¶ [0043] – Based on the merchandise item ID [product code] sent from the merchandise item identification device, the POS terminal records information about sales registration of the merchandise item corresponding to the merchandise item ID [product code], such as the merchandise classification, the trade name, and the unit price of the merchandise item, into a sales master file and [0074] - reads the surface states such as the color shades and the surface irregularities of the available merchandise items as feature amounts, and compares the feature amounts with the feature amount of an imaged merchandise item, to calculate the degrees of similarity between the imaged merchandise item and the available merchandise items recorded in the feature amount file), identify a candidate product code in the recognition result having a highest degree of similarity value (See Katsumura ¶ [0081-0082] – determines an available merchandise item or selects candidate merchandise items in accordance with satisfied conditions … the condition for extracting candidates for the object in a frame image from the available merchandise items recorded in the feature amount file and [0085-0090] - the determination notifying unit causes the display to display a determination screen indicating that the available merchandise item satisfying the condition X is uniquely determined to be the merchandise item captured by the camera, wherein said condition X shows the highest degree of similarity by example compared to conditions Y and Z) and check a product master database to determine whether the identified candidate product code is for a code-symbol attached product having a code symbol thereon (See Katsumura ¶ [0096-0099] – accepts the available merchandise item in the selected photographed image as the determined merchandise item corresponding to the merchandise item … the merchandise item ID [product code] read by the information outputting unit from the feature amount file [product master database] may be reported directly to the POS terminal, or the trade name with which the merchandise item ID can be identified, a merchandise item image [code symbol] may be reported to the POS terminal and [0243] - a bar code or the like printed on a merchandise item may be read so that the merchandise item can be identified); and
if the candidate product code having the highest degree of similarity value is for a code-symbol attached product, delay registration to permit another recognition result to be received from the imaging device (See Katsumura ¶ [0132-0137] - the camera starts capturing a merchandise item image [code symbol] … a series of procedures in which the operator holds a merchandise item in front of the camera through the read window, and the merchandise item identification device successfully detects the object that is the merchandise item … the similarity calculating unit reads a feature amount of the merchandise item from the image showing all or part of the merchandise item ... having a degree of similarity equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value, and retrieves the trade name and the unit price of the merchandise item … determines whether the determined merchandise item matches a merchandise item provisionally registered [delay registration] in the current transaction … outputs the merchandise item ID and the like of the determined available merchandise item to the POS terminal, and causes the POS terminal to correct the provisional registration of the merchandise item. The sales canceling unit of the POS terminal corrects (cancels) the provisional registration of the merchandise item based on the merchandise item ID [product code] and [0243] - a bar code or the like printed on a merchandise item may be read so that the merchandise item can be identified).
While Katsumura teaches a point of sale register device that recognizes products through captured images of product data (Katsumura ¶ [0043] and [0074]), Katsumura does not explicitly teach an edge device connected to the imaging device, the edge device configured to perform object recognition processing on images of the product from the imaging device. This is taught by Kobayashi (See Kobayashi ¶ [0019] – POS terminals connected to image recognition devices connected to edge servers via a communication network and [0025] - Each edge server generates a local model and updates the local model using the AI function. The local model is a learning model used to recognize an image of a commodity such as fresh food or fruit). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the captured image product registration process of Katsumura the use of edge servers for image recognition through a communication network connecting multiple devices as taught by Kobayashi to improve accuracy in recognizing commodities having only small differences in feature data when shown in a captured image (Kobayashi ¶ [0101]), thereby increasing the accuracy of the captured image checkout process of Katsumura.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Katsumura teaches:
The product registration system according to claim 8, wherein the product master database is stored on the point-of-sale terminal (See Katsumura ¶ [0062] – The feature amount file is a merchandise item file in which information about sales registration of the respective merchandise items available in the store is associated with images of the respective merchandise items, and functions as a dictionary of the available merchandise items [product master database by example] and Fig. 3 – the feature amount file is stored on the POS terminal).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Katsumura teaches:
The product registration system according to claim 7, … performs the object recognition using an object detection …, a feature extraction …, and a matching dictionary (See Katsumura ¶ [0062] - The feature amount file is a merchandise item file in which information about sales registration of the respective merchandise items available in the store is associated [matching as noted below re: ¶ [0069]] with images of the respective merchandise items, and functions as a dictionary of the available merchandise items, [0069] – The object detecting unit detects all or some of the objects included in the frame images acquired by the image acquiring unit, using a pattern matching technique, [0070] - The object detecting unit digitizes an acquired frame image, and extract the contour [feature by example] and Fig. 3 – the feature amount file is stored on the POS terminal).
While Katsumura teaches a point of sale register device that recognizes products through captured images of product data (Katsumura ¶ [0043] and [0074]), Katsumura does not explicitly teach that said recognition is model based and performed on the edge device. This is taught by Kobayashi (See Kobayashi ¶ [0019] – POS terminals connected to image recognition devices connected to edge servers via a communication network and [0025] - Each edge server generates a local model and updates the local model using the AI function. The local model is a learning model used to recognize an image of a commodity such as fresh food or fruit). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the captured image product registration process of Katsumura the use of edge servers for image recognition through a communication network connecting multiple devices as taught by Kobayashi to improve accuracy in recognizing commodities having only small differences in feature data when shown in a captured image (Kobayashi ¶ [0101]), thereby increasing the accuracy of the captured image checkout process of Katsumura.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Katsumura teaches:
The product registration system according to claim 7 (See claim 7 above), further comprising:
a store server connected to the point-of-sale terminal, wherein
the product master database is stored on the store server.
While Katsumura teaches a point of sale register device that recognizes products through captured images of product data (Katsumura ¶ [0043] and [0074]), Katsumura does not explicitly teach that said recognition is from a store server connected to the point-of-sale terminal having the product master database is stored on the store server. This is taught by Kobayashi (See Kobayashi ¶ [0019] – POS terminals connected to image recognition devices connected to edge servers [store server] via a communication network and [0025] - Each edge server generates a local model and updates the local model using the AI function. The local model is a learning model that is specific to a particular store and used to recognize an image of a commodity such as fresh food or fruit [product master database by example]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the captured image product registration process of Katsumura the use of edge servers for image recognition through a communication network connecting multiple devices as taught by Kobayashi to improve accuracy in recognizing commodities having only small differences in feature data when shown in a captured image (Kobayashi ¶ [0101]), thereby increasing the accuracy of the captured image checkout process of Katsumura.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Independent claim 7 has been amended to resolve the previous issue concerning U.S.C. § 112(b), therefore this rejection is withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
The claim set of the instant application has not been amended in any manner to significantly change the scope of said claim set. Therefore, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that the current rejection shows the exemplary claim 1 as merely “involving a series of steps for sales activities” and is thereby a clearly erroneous application of the required legal test, the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is not erroneous. The applicant’s arguments are taken out of context and do not consider the whole rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The current rejection shows step by step analysis of exemplary claim 1 with respect to the requirements for claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
While Desjardins warns that examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality, the claim limitations of exemplary independent claim 1 showing “a processor configured to ... if the candidate product code having the highest degree of similarity value is for a code-symbol attached product, delay registration to permit another recognition result to be received via the communication unit” are conditional and not necessarily invoked. This conditionality does not show an improvement positively reflected in said claim. Further, this delaying step remains executed by technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such that these claim do not improve the functioning of a product registration device. This is because said independent claims 1, 7 and 16 remain without any clear improvement to the underlying technology by remaining to be executed by technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality and in their ordinary capacity amounting to not more than computer implementation of the abstract idea, which does not show integration into a practical application nor does it show significantly more than the abstract ideas discussed above in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Further, due to this high level of generality, said claims do not reflect a technological improvement to a technical problem, but rather only reflect improvement of the abstract idea. Any improvement of a claimed invention must be clearly reflected by said claims.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
The claim set of the instant application has not been amended in any manner to significantly change the scope of said claim set. Therefore, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that Katsumura has been misread and fails to teach “delay registration to permit another recognition result to be received” when “the candidate product code having the highest degree of similarity value is for a code-symbol attached product.” as required by independent claim 1 (and similarly claims 7 and 16), Katsumura has not been misread and does in fact teach these features. Not only does the applicant not consider all of the cited sections of Katsumura, but the applicant also bases their arguments on a narrow interpretation of the claim limitations than is required given the broadest reasonable interpretation of said claim limitations in light of the specification. The applicant’s arguments only address ¶ [0243] of Katsumura, while ¶ [0096-0099], [0132-0137] and [0243] are relied to teach the claimed features as noted above in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Further, the applicant’s arguments are based on a narrow interpretation of the claimed product code and code-symbol as a bar code type of code/ symbol. This is simply not required by the claim limitations. If the limitations of independent claim 1 (and similarly claims 7 and 16) were amended to require said product code and code-symbol be interpreted as a bar code type of code/ symbol, these features would be taught by Kobayashi at ¶ [0066]. Therefore, the combination of Katsumura and Kobayashi remain to teach all of the claimed features of the instant application as they are currently limited, thereby showing a prima face case of obviousness.
Similar arguments are presented for independent claims 7 and 16, which remain rejected with a prima face case of obviousness by the combination of Katsumura and Kobayashi as noted above.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-15 and 17-20 remain rejected for dependency on their respective rejected independent base claims and as described above in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The applicant is generally reminded that the specification of an instant application is not read into the claims during examination and that prior art must be considered in its entirety (MPEP 2141.02 (VI)).
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 MATTHEW S WERONSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 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, Fahd A. 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.
/MATTHEW S WERONSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights