DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
This action is in reply to the first amendment to non-final filed on April 14, 2026.
Claims 1–3, 6–10, 13–15, 17, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1–20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 14, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1–20 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on June 16, 2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Forms 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(1) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(2) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always, linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(3) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Computer implemented means plus function limitations that perform general purpose computer functions need only disclose sufficient computer structure in the specification. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Limitations that are performing any specialized functions, or that require any special purpose computer, however, must disclose computing structure and an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See id.
Claim 8, line 5, includes the limitation “image sensor configured to capture images”, and thus includes a generic placeholder (“image sensor”) and functional language (“configured to capture images”). And, the limitation does not recite sufficient structure to achieve the function (“image sensor” has insufficient structure). The limitation “image sensor configured to capture images” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a computer implemented means plus function limitation performing more than a general computer function. The corresponding computer structure and algorithm is recited in specification paragraph numbers 55 and 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
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.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1–14 are directed to a machine (“A fraud detection apparatus” and “A fraud detection system”), and claims 15–20 are directed to a process (“A fraud detection method”). Thus, claims 1–20 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 1–20, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
. . . detect, based on an image capturing a target apparatus that is a fraud detection target, a person in a first area in a periphery of the target apparatus;
detect, based on the image, at least one of a commodity and a storing body storing the commodity in a second area in the periphery of the target apparatus; and
. . . initiate an alert state in response to determining that . . . not detect the person and does not detect both of the commodity and the storing body in a state in which settlement processing is executed for the commodity.
The claims, therefore, recite detecting transaction fraud, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies and computer components to implement this abstract idea (“fraud detection apparatus”, “interface”, “settlement apparatus”, “point of sale (POS) system”, “registration apparatus”, “fraud alerting unit”, “processor”, “light emitting component”, “fraud detection system”, “image sensor”, and “display screen”). These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the computer to detect fraud and alert users. Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent apparatus claim 1. There are no additional elements recited in these claims other than the generic technology and computer parts discussed above (“fraud detection system”, “point of sale (POS) system”, “registration apparatus”, “settlement apparatus”, “image sensor”, “fraud detection apparatus”, “interface”, “processor”, and “fraud alerting unit”). The only differences are that the features of claim 1 are performed by a system in claim 8 and implemented by a method in claim 15. Thus, because the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, claims 8 and 15 are also not patent eligible. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 2, 9, and 16, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the fraud detection recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 by further specifying how the person is detected—“detect a direction” and “disable the detection of the person detector if the direction . . . is not a direction of the target apparatus”.
For claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, 20, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the fraud detection recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 by further specifying how the alert is communicated—“if the input detector detects the input operation, suppress alert”, “changes a light emission state”, and “display on a store clerk side”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These claims do recite a light emitting component and display screen, but again, these are also merely being used as tools to communicate the alert. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the fraud detection recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 by further specifying the area analyzed—“including a placing section on which at least one of the commodity and the storing body is placed” and “a commodity basket . . . and . . . a commodity cart . . . and a retaining section in a periphery”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11–16, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiani et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0242503 (“Musiani”) in view of Sekine et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0278362 (“Sekine”) and Saito et al., Japanese Patent App. Pub. No. JP 2018022979 A (“Saito”).
For claim 1, Musiani teaches:
A fraud detection apparatus, comprising (¶ 50: example system):
an interface for receiving images of a settlement apparatus in a point of sale (POS) system (¶ 47: interface providing image stream) . . .; and
a processor configured to (¶ 54: processor):
detect, based on the image, at least one of a commodity and a storing body storing the commodity in a second area in the periphery of the target apparatus (¶ 79: items recognized from image from within basket and shopping cart); and
control a state of a fraud alerting unit to initiate an alert state in response to determining that the processor does not detect the person and does not detect both of the commodity and the storing body in a state in which settlement processing is executed for the commodity (¶ 90: error states regarding misplacement of item with regard to basket and cart; ¶ 106: alert supervisory personnel).
Musiani does not teach: an interface for receiving images of a settlement apparatus in a point of sale (POS) system that has a registration apparatus that is separate from the settlement apparatus for detecting fraud; and detect, based on an image capturing a target apparatus that is a fraud detection target, a person in a first area in a periphery of the target apparatus.
Sekine, however, teaches:
detect, based on an image capturing a target apparatus that is a fraud detection target, a person in a first area in a periphery of the target apparatus (¶ 37: detection of person in vicinity of self-service POS based on image acquired; ¶ 61: fraud detected based on absence).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani by adding the person detection from Sekine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing fraud at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sekine (¶ 2, 3, 5, 6: need for higher accuracy of preventing fraud at self-service POS; ¶ 16: invention addresses issues through fraud detection system) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations).
The combination of Musiani and Sekine does not teach: a point of sale (POS) system that has a registration apparatus that is separate from the settlement apparatus for detecting fraud.
Saito, however, teaches:
a point of sale (POS) system that has a registration apparatus that is separate from the settlement apparatus for detecting fraud (p. 3, ¶ 5: registration apparatus and settlement apparatus are separate parts of POS system “The store controller 10 is an information processing apparatus that manages the POS system 1. The store controller 10 manages the registration apparatus 20, the settlement apparatus 30, and the like in the POS system 1”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani and the person detection in Sekine by adding the POS system from Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating payment—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Saito (p. 2, ¶ 2: invention provides registration of product and settlement to facilitate compatibility of payment systems) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4: need for more user-friendly and reliable self-checkout systems). Musiani, Sekine, and Saito are all related to self-checkout transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
For claim 2, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Sekine further teaches:
The fraud detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: detect a direction of the person (¶ 48: multiple persons facing various directions detected); and
disable detection of the person in response to determining that the direction of the person is not a direction of the target apparatus (¶ 48: detection processes ended).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani and the POS system in Saito by adding the person detection from Sekine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing fraud at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sekine (¶ 2, 3, 5, 6: need for higher accuracy of preventing fraud at self-service POS; ¶ 16: invention addresses issues through fraud detection system) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations). Musiani, Sekine, and Saito are all related to self-checkout transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more secure by combining these references together.
For claim 4, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second area is an area including a placing section on which at least one of the commodity and the storing body is placed if the settlement processing is executed in the target apparatus (¶ 57: cart placement area for self-checkout).
For claim 5, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the storing body includes at least one of a commodity basket that stores the commodity and a commodity cart that stores the shopping basket (¶ 79: items within basket or shopping cart), and
the second area is an area including a placing section on which the commodity basket is placed if the settlement processing is executed in the target apparatus and a retaining section in a periphery of the placing section in which the commodity cart is retained (¶ 57: cart placement area for self-checkout).
For claim 6, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the fraud alerting unit is a light emitting component (¶ 106: alert includes red lights), and
the processor initiates the alert state by changing a light emission state of the light emitting component (¶ 106: alert includes red lights).
For claim 7, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a display screen to display on a store clerk side of the fraud detection apparatus and alert the store clerk (¶ 106: alert includes screen messages).
For claim 8, Musiani teaches:
A fraud detection system, comprising (¶ 50: example system): . . .
a plurality of target apparatuses that are fraud detection targets (¶ 50: self-checkout stations);
an image sensor configured to capture images of the plurality of target apparatuses (¶ 50: overhead camera above system); and
a fraud detection apparatus connected to the image sensor, the fraud detection apparatus including (¶ 70: fraud detection system connected to camera):
an interface for receiving images of the settlement apparatus of the POS system (¶ 47: interface providing image stream); and
a processor configured to (¶ 54: processor): . . .
detect, based on the image of the image sensor capturing the plurality of target apparatuses, at least one of a commodity or a storing body storing the commodity in a second area in the periphery of the target apparatus among the plurality of target apparatuses (¶ 79: items recognized from image from within basket and shopping cart); and
control a state of a fraud alerting unit to initiate an alert state in response to determining that the processor does not detect the person and does not detect both of the commodity and the storing body in a state in which the target apparatus is executing settlement processing for the commodity (¶ 90: error states regarding misplacement of item with regard to basket and cart; ¶ 106: alert supervisory personnel).
Musiani does not teach: a point of sale (POS) system comprising a registration apparatus and a settlement apparatus for detecting fraud that is separate from the registration apparatus; and detect, based on an image of the image sensor capturing the plurality of target apparatuses, a person in a first area in a periphery of a target apparatus among the plurality of target apparatuses.
Sekine, however, teaches:
detect, based on an image of the image sensor capturing the plurality of target apparatuses, a person in a first area in a periphery of a target apparatus among the plurality of target apparatuses (¶ 37: detection of person in vicinity of self-service POS based on image acquired; ¶ 61: fraud detected based on absence).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani by adding the person detection from Sekine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing fraud at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sekine (¶ 2, 3, 5, 6: need for higher accuracy of preventing fraud at self-service POS; ¶ 16: invention addresses issues through fraud detection system) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations).
The combination of Musiani and Sekine does not teach: a point of sale (POS) system comprising a registration apparatus and a settlement apparatus for detecting fraud that is separate from the registration apparatus.
Saito, however, teaches:
a point of sale (POS) system comprising a registration apparatus and a settlement apparatus for detecting fraud that is separate from the registration apparatus (p. 3, ¶ 5: registration apparatus and settlement apparatus are separate parts of POS system “The store controller 10 is an information processing apparatus that manages the POS system 1. The store controller 10 manages the registration apparatus 20, the settlement apparatus 30, and the like in the POS system 1”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani and the person detection in Sekine by adding the POS system from Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating payment—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Saito (p. 2, ¶ 2: invention provides registration of product and settlement to facilitate compatibility of payment systems) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4: need for more user-friendly and reliable self-checkout systems). Musiani, Sekine, and Saito are all related to self-checkout transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
For claim 9, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Sekine further teaches:
The fraud detection system according to claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to: detect a direction of the person (¶ 48: multiple persons facing various directions detected); and
disable detection of the person detector if the direction of the person is not a direction of the target apparatus (¶ 48: detection processes ended).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani and the POS system in Saito by adding the person detection from Sekine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing fraud at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sekine (¶ 2, 3, 5, 6: need for higher accuracy of preventing fraud at self-service POS; ¶ 16: invention addresses issues through fraud detection system) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations). Musiani, Sekine, and Saito are all related to self-checkout transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more secure by combining these references together.
For claim 11, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection system according to claim 8, wherein the second area is an area including a placing section on which at least one of the commodity and the storing body is placed if the settlement processing is executed in the target apparatus (¶ 57: cart placement area for self-checkout).
For claim 12, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection system according to claim 8, wherein the storing body includes at least one of a commodity basket that stores the commodity and a commodity cart that stores the shopping basket (¶ 79: items within basket or shopping cart), and
the second area is an area including a placing section on which the commodity basket is placed if the settlement processing is executed in the target apparatus and a retaining section in a periphery of the placing section in which the commodity cart is retained (¶ 57: cart placement area for self-checkout).
For claim 13, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection system according to claim 8, wherein: the fraud alerting unit is a light emitting component (¶ 106: alert includes red lights), and
the processor initiates the alert state by changing a light emission state of the light emitting component (¶ 106: alert includes red lights).
For claim 14, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection system according to claim 8, further comprising: a display screen to display on a store clerk side of the fraud detection apparatus and alert the store clerk (¶ 106: alert includes screen messages).
For claim 15, Musiani teaches:
A fraud detection method, comprising (¶ 79: example process): . . .
detecting, based on the image, at least one of a commodity or a storing body storing the commodity in a second area in the periphery of the target apparatus (¶ 79: items recognized from image from within basket and shopping cart); and
setting a state of a fraud alerting unit to an alert state in response to determining that the person is not detected and both of the commodity and the storing body are not detected in a state in which settlement processing is executed for the commodity (¶ 90: error states regarding misplacement of item with regard to basket and cart; ¶ 106: alert supervisory personnel).
Musiani does not teach: registering, by a registration apparatus of a point of sale (POS) system comprising a processor, commodities for purchase; and performing, by a settlement apparatus of the POS system that is separate from the registration apparatus, settlement processing for the commodities; and detecting, based on an image capturing a target apparatus that is a fraud detection target, a person in a first area in a periphery of the target apparatus.
Sekine, however, teaches:
detecting, based on an image capturing a target apparatus that is a fraud detection target, a person in a first area in a periphery of the target apparatus (¶ 37: detection of person in vicinity of self-service POS based on image acquired; ¶ 61: fraud detected based on absence).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani by adding the person detection from Sekine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing fraud at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sekine (¶ 2, 3, 5, 6: need for higher accuracy of preventing fraud at self-service POS; ¶ 16: invention addresses issues through fraud detection system) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations).
The combination of Musiani and Sekine does not teach: registering, by a registration apparatus of a point of sale (POS) system comprising a processor, commodities for purchase; and performing, by a settlement apparatus of the POS system that is separate from the registration apparatus, settlement processing for the commodities.
Saito, however, teaches:
registering, by a registration apparatus of a point of sale (POS) system comprising a processor, commodities for purchase (p. 15, ¶ 2: product registration preformed in registration device of POS system “In the POS system 1 according to this embodiment having the above described configuration, processing from accounting to settlement is performed. In the present embodiment, the accounting includes product registration performed in the registration device 20 in accordance with one transaction . . .. The accounting process includes a product registration process executed by the registration apparatus 20”); and
performing, by a settlement apparatus of the POS system that is separate from the registration apparatus, settlement processing for the commodities (p. 15, ¶ 2, 4: settlement preformed in settlement device of POS system “In the POS system 1 according to this embodiment having the above described configuration, processing from accounting to settlement is performed. In the present embodiment, the accounting includes . . . settlement performed in the settlement device 30.”, “In addition, the store clerk performs a settlement apparatus designating operation for designating the settlement apparatus 30 that is to execute the settlement process according to the current transaction”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani and the person detection in Sekine by adding the POS system from Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating payment—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Saito (p. 2, ¶ 2: invention provides registration of product and settlement to facilitate compatibility of payment systems) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4: need for more user-friendly and reliable self-checkout systems). Musiani, Sekine, and Saito are all related to self-checkout transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
For claim 16, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Sekine further teaches:
The fraud detection method according to claim 15, further comprising: detecting a direction of the person detected (¶ 48: multiple persons facing various directions detected); and
disabling the detection of the person if the direction of the person detected is not a direction of the target apparatus (¶ 48: detection processes ended).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani and the POS system in Saito by adding the person detection from Sekine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing fraud at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sekine (¶ 2, 3, 5, 6: need for higher accuracy of preventing fraud at self-service POS; ¶ 16: invention addresses issues through fraud detection system) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations). Musiani, Sekine, and Saito are all related to self-checkout transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more secure by combining these references together.
For claim 18, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection method according to claim 15, wherein the second area is an area including a placing section on which at least one of the commodity and the storing body is placed if the settlement processing is executed in the target apparatus (¶ 57: cart placement area for self-checkout).
For claim 19, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection method according to claim 15, wherein the storing body includes at least one of a commodity basket that stores the commodity and a commodity cart that stores the shopping basket (¶ 79: items within basket or shopping cart), and
the second area is an area including a placing section on which the commodity basket is placed if the settlement processing is executed in the target apparatus and a retaining section in a periphery of the placing section in which the commodity cart is retained (¶ 57: cart placement area for self-checkout).
For claim 20, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Musiani further teaches:
The fraud detection method according to claim 15, wherein the setting of the state of the fraud alerting unit comprises at least one of: changing a light emission state of a light emitting component (¶ 106: alert includes red lights); or displaying an alert on a store clerk side of a display screen (¶ 106: alert includes screen messages).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiani et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0242503 (“Musiani”) in view of Sekine et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0278362 (“Sekine”); Saito et al., Japanese Patent App. Pub. No. JP 2018022979 A (“Saito”); and Malgarini et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0249342 (“Malgarini”).
For claim 3, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination of Musiani, Sekine, and Saito does not teach: detect input operation to the target apparatus by the person; and in response to detecting the input operation, suppress initiation of the alert state for a predetermined time.
Malgarini, however, teaches:
The fraud detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: detect input operation to the target apparatus by the person (¶ 105: user interacts with button); and
in response to detecting the input operation, suppress initiation of the alert state for a predetermined time (¶ 105: alert dismissed based on user interacting with button).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani, the person detection in Sekine, and the POS system in Saito by adding the alert from Malgarini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing theft at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Malgarini (¶ 4: theft prevention is obstacle to adoption of contactless checkouts; ¶ 5: invention provides alerts in cases of fraud) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations). Musiani, Sekine, Saito, and Malgarini are all related to self-checkout transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more secure by combining these references together.
For claim 10, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 8 above. The combination of Musiani, Sekine, and Saito does not teach: detect input operation to the target apparatus by the person; and in response to detecting the input operation, suppress initiation of the alert state for a predetermined time.
Malgarini, however, teaches:
The fraud detection system according to claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to: detect input operation to the target apparatus by the person (¶ 105: user interacts with button); and
in response to detecting the input operation, suppress initiation of the alert state for a predetermined time (¶ 105: alert dismissed based on user interacting with button).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani, the person detection in Sekine, and the POS system in Saito by adding the alert from Malgarini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing theft at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Malgarini (¶ 4: theft prevention is obstacle to adoption of contactless checkouts; ¶ 5: invention provides alerts in cases of fraud) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations). Musiani, Sekine, Saito, and Malgarini are all related to self-checkout transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more secure by combining these references together.
For claim 17, Musiani, Sekine, and Saito teach all the limitations of claim 15 above. The combination of Musiani, Sekine, and Saito does not teach: detecting input operation to the target apparatus by the person; and in response to the detecting of the input operation, suppressing the setting of the state of the fraud alerting unit to the alert state for a predetermined time.
Malgarini, however, teaches:
The fraud detection method according to claim 15, further comprising: detecting input operation to the target apparatus by the person (¶ 105: user interacts with button); and
in response to the detecting of the input operation, suppressing the setting of the state of the fraud alerting unit to the alert state for a predetermined time (¶ 105: alert dismissed based on user interacting with button).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fraud detection in Musiani, the person detection in Sekine, and the POS system in Saito by adding the alert from Malgarini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing theft at self-checkout systems—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Malgarini (¶ 4: theft prevention is obstacle to adoption of contactless checkouts; ¶ 5: invention provides alerts in cases of fraud) and desired by Musiani (¶ 4, 9: fraud detection solutions needed for self-checkout stations). Musiani, Sekine, Saito, and Malgarini are all related to self-checkout transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more secure by combining these references together.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they recite a technical improvement. Applicant cites the newly amended limitations and then explains that the claims improve point of sale systems by providing real-time notifications of fraud situations through separate registration and settlement apparatuses. The improvement recited in the claims, however, is an improvement to the checkout transaction by reducing the fraud situations. The claimed invention merely makes the fraud detection more efficient by separating the analysis between the registration and settlement apparatuses, rather than improving the technology itself in any way. The claims are therefore merely applying the abstract idea to the generic technology recited. Thus, claims 1–20 do not include additional elements sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application.
Next, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims include nonconventional elements. Applicant explains that claims directed to a judicial exception are nevertheless patent eligible if they recite an inventive concept. As explained above, however, the claimed invention is improving the transaction fraud detection rather than improving the technology in any way. The claims are therefore merely applying the abstract idea to the technologies recited. And, merely applying an abstract idea to a computer, as established in Step 2A Prong Two, cannot provide an inventive concept, as required under Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant further argues that the claims are considerably narrowed relative to any alleged abstract idea, and therefore minimize any risk of preemption. Preemption, however, is a consideration, but it is not the standalone test for eligibility. See MPEP 2106.04(I) (“While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility . . .. Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B) . . .. It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible.”). Thus, for the reasons discussed above, claims 1–20 do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 8, and 15 and argues that the combination of Musiani (U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0242503) and Sekine (U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0278362) does not disclose these additional limitations. Claims 1, 8, and 15, however, is currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Musiani in view of Sekine and Saito (Japanese Patent App. Pub. No. JP 2018022979 A). Thus, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 are moot.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claims 1, 8, and 15, which was amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. As discussed above, however, claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Musiani in view of Sekine and Saito. Thus, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 are moot.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Those prior art references are as follows:
Naito et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0270099, discloses self-checkout fraud detection based on image analysis.
Wen et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2021/0280027, discloses self-checkout warnings based on video frames captured.
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 DIVESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272–3430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM–8:00 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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272–3955. 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.
/DIVESH PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights