DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Jul. 2, 2024, and is made Non-Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Examiner interviews are available by telephone or, preferably, by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Interviews conducted solely for the purpose of “sounding out” the examiner, including by local counsel acting only as a conduit for another practitioner, are not permitted under MPEP § 713.03. The Office is strictly enforcing established interview practice, and applicants should ensure that every interview request is directed toward advancing prosecution on the merits in compliance with MPEP §§ 713 and 713.03.
For after-final Interview requests, supervisory approval is required before an interview may be granted. Each AIR should specifically explain how the After-Final Interview request will advance prosecution—for example, by identifying targeted arguments responsive to the rejection of record, alleged defects in the examiner’s analysis, proposed claim amendments, or another concrete basis for discussion. See MPEP § 713. If the AIR form’s character limits prevent inclusion of all pertinent details, Applicants may send a contemporaneous email to the examiner at James.Miller1@uspto.gov.
The examiner is generally available Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST.
For any GRANTED Interview Request, Applicant can expect an email within 24 hours confirming an interview slot from the dates/times proposed and providing collaboration tool access instructions. For any DENIED Interview Request, the record will include a communication explaining the reason for the denial.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Jul. 2, 2024, was filed before the mailing of a first office action on the merits and therefore, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b)(3). Accordingly, the IDS has been considered.
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1–20 are pending and examined with Claims 1, 8, and 14 in independent form.
This is a first action on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
Consideration was given to rejecting the underlined limitations under § 112(b) in Independent Claims: “a commodity registration component configured to perform, based on an operation of the store clerk, commodity registration processing of a commodity purchased by the customer” and “a settlement processing component configured to perform, based on an operation of the customer, settlement processing of the commodities” but a rejection under § 112(b) is not required. Each “component” is “configured to” perform the claimed operation and describes system behavior or capability. The store clerk and customer’s actions are not part of the claimed steps and require no human action but merely represent a triggering condition upon which the system performs the claimed action. MPEP § 2173.05(p) (citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011); IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
Consideration was given to rejecting the underlined limitations under § 112(b) in Independent Claims: “a notification component configured to notify the first processing component of the cancellation of the commodity by the declaration component” and “a notification component configured to receive the notification from the second processing component and notify the store clerk of the cancellation of the commodity,” but a rejection under § 112(b) is not required. The claim when read in light of the specification makes clear there are two distinct notification components with a distinct location (one in the first processing component and one in the second processing component), and the specification provides clear support for this. Spec. Fig. 8 (“notification unit 302,” “notification unit 102”).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
commodity registration processing is the process of displaying and storing commodity information (name, price) based on imaging a symbol attached to a commodity. Spec. ¶ 22 (“The registration machine 1 images, for example, a symbol (for example, a bar code or a two-dimensional code) attached to a commodity with a camera and executes commodity registration processing of a commodity to be sold. The commodity registration processing includes processing of displaying and storing, based on commodity identification information”).
settlement processing is processing that displays settlement information (total, deposit, change), conducts payment (cash or non-cash), and dispenses a receipt based on the store commodity information. Spec. ¶ 25.
cancellation processing is deleting the registered commodity information for the item to be cancelled from the stored commodity data. Spec. ¶ 37
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Functional Nature of Limitations
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language that both (1) fails to recite sufficiently definite structure and (2) recites a function without reciting sufficient structure for performing the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
first processing component (Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17)
second processing component (Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 14, 15, 16, 18)
commodity registration component (Claims 1, 14)
declaration component (Claims 1, 14)
notification component (Claims 1, 14)
first acquisition component (Claims 1, 2, 14, 15)
second acquisition component (Claims 2 and 15)
cancellation processing component (Claims 1, 2, 14, 15)
settlement processing component (Claims 1, 14)
transmission component (Claims 2, 15)
selection component (Claims 3, 4, 16, 17)
display component (Claims 4, 17)
customer display component (Claims 5, 6, 18, 19)
store clerk display component (Claims 5, 18)
(collectively “component(s)”)
Examiner finds the aforementioned components do not have a well understood structural meaning in the computer technology field. There is no evidence—in the form of dictionary definitions, clear specification definitions, or otherwise—that component was reasonably understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to refer to structure or a class of structures. Of note, “component” is not recited in the specification (“unit” is). Instead, a skilled artisan would understand the functional terms “components” to be any structure capable of performing the claimed function. The prefixes to the word “component” above, such as “store clerk display,” do not impart structure because it merely describes each unit’s intended functionality. The component limitations are further drafted in the same format as a traditional means-plus-function limitation, and merely replaces the term “means” with “nonce” word “component,” which is akin to “’mechanism,' 'element,' 'device,' and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs” invoking § 112(f). Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). Thus, neither the words of the claim nor the specification suggested a structural limitation that might serve to cabin the scope of the functional term, thus supporting the conclusion that the claim limitation was written in means-plus-function format. MPEP § 2181(I)(A).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Disclosure of Corresponding Structure
Having found that the aforementioned claim terms are subject to interpretation under § 112(f), next, it is determined whether Applicant’s Specification discloses sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Examiner finds it does not.
Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process. First, the function must be identified. Second, the corresponding structure, if any, disclosed in Applicant’s Specification that corresponds to the claimed function must be determined. When multiple functions are claimed, Applicant must disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform all of the claimed functions. If the Applicant fails to disclose any corresponding structure or adequate corresponding structure, the claim is indefinite.
When evaluating § 112(f) limitations in software related claims for definiteness under § 112(b), a specialized function must be supported in the specification by the computer and the algorithm that the computer uses to perform the claimed specialized function. However, a non-specialized function requires no more support in the specification than a general-purpose computer or a known computer component that is recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as typically including structure and non-specialized programming to perform the claimed function. Generally, it is only in rare circumstances that an algorithm need not be disclosed. MPEP § 2181(II)(B). Rare circumstances are when functionality is coextensive with a microprocessor such as the functions of receiving, storing, or processing of data. Id. (Katz1 exception).
The following claim limitations are interpreted under § 112(f) along with their corresponding structure from Applicant’s Specification. For each claim limitation interpreted under § 112(f), an evaluation for definiteness under § 112(b) is also performed.
Claimed Functions
The commodity registration component performs the functions of:
perform … commodity registration processing of a commodity purchased by the customer (Claims 1, 14);
The declaration component performs the functions of:
receive a declaration of cancellation of a part or all of commodities subjected to the commodity registration processing (Claims 1, 14);
The notification component performs the functions of:
notify the first processing component of the cancellation of the commodity (Claims 1, 14);
receive the notification from the second processing component and notify the store clerk of the cancellation of the commodity (Claims 1, 14);
The first acquisition component performs the functions of:
acquire information on the commodity to be cancelled (Claims 1, 14)
acquires the cancellation information (Claims 2. 15)
The second acquisition component performs the functions of:
acquire information on the commodity to be cancelled (Claims 2, 15);
The cancellation processing component performs the functions of: performs the functions of:
perform cancellation processing of the commodity (Claims 1, 2, 14, 15);
The settlement processing component performs the functions of: performs the functions of:
perform … settlement processing of the commodities subjected to the commodity registration processing (Claims 1, 14);
The transmission component performs the functions of: performs the functions of:
transmit, to the second processing component, commodity cancellation information related to the acquired information (Claims 2, 15)
The selection component performs the functions of:
select whether to perform a cancellation (Claims 3, 16)
The display component performs the functions of:
display an option selectable by the selection component (Claims 4, 17);
The customer display component performs the functions of:
displays an option for selecting the cancellation of the commodity subjected to the commodity registration processing (Claims 6, 19)
The store clerk display component performs the functions of:
displays commodity information related to the commodities subjected to the commodity registration processing, the commodities including the commodity to be cancelled (Claims 5, 18);
The first processing component performs the functions of the following prior components:
commodity registration component (Claim 1, 14)
a notification component (Claim 1, 14)
second acquisition component (Claim 2, 15)
transmission component (Claim 2, 15)
cancellation processing component (Claim 2, 15)
selection component (Claim 3, 16)
display component (Claim 4, 17)
The second processing component performs the functions of the following prior components:
declaration component (Claims 1, 14)
notification component (Claims 1, 14).
first acquisition component (Claims 1, 14)
cancellation processing component (Claims 1, 14)
settlement processing component (Claims 1, 14)
a customer display component (Claims 5, 18)
store clerk display component (Claims 5, 18)
Corresponding Structure
Indeterminate. The claims use the word "component", a word that is not mentioned anywhere in the specification.
Evaluation of Definitiveness under § 112(b)
Because the structure of each of the “components” is indeterminate, the § 112(f) limitations lack definitiveness and are all subject to § 112(b) rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1–20: As identified supra, Claims 1–6, 8, and 14–19 fail to disclose any structure to perform the claimed function, rendering the claim language indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctively claim the subject matter. All Dependent Claims are rejected based on their dependence to rejected independent claims.
Claims 10 and 11: Claim 10 recites “selecting whether to perform a cancellation operation or to perform the cancellation operation,” is unclear and circular, in that both recited alternatives are phrased as “perform a cancellation operation” and thus do not define a discernible choice or scope of the “selecting” step. In the absence of clear identification of the actor, the locus of the selection (e.g., first processing component vs. second processing component), and distinct alternatives, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of claim 10. Claim 11 is rejected based on its dependence to the rejected Claim 10.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–20: When a claim containing a computer-implemented 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient structure in the specification, it will also lack written description under § 112(a). The specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The specification must provide a sufficient description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve. MPEP 2163(II)(A)(2). It is not enough that one skilled in art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved. MPEP 2161.01(I).
Here, as explained supra, all “components” in Claims 1–6, 8, and 14–19 have been interpreted under § 112(f) and found indefinite under § 112(b). Therefore, Claims 1–6, 8, and 14–19 also lack written description under § 112(a). All Dependent Claims are rejected based on their dependence to rejected independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 10 and 11: Claim 9 recites “performing cancellation processing of the commodity related to the cancellation information acquired.” Claim 10 depends from Claim 9 and recites “selecting whether to perform a cancellation operation or to perform the cancellation operation.” Claim 10 fails to clearly add a definite further limitation to the method of claim 9. The recited step “selecting whether to perform a cancellation operation or to perform the cancellation operation” is internally repetitive and does not set forth a meaningful choice between distinct alternatives or provide any additional structural or functional detail that narrows the method of claim 9. The claim language does not specify, for example, which entity performs the selection, on which component the selection is made, or between what clearly differentiated operations the selection is made. Accordingly, claim 10 does not “specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed” as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Claim 11 is rejected based on its dependence to the rejected Claim 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 1–20 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1–7 and 14–20 recite a “system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.” Claims 8–13 recite a “method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “process.”
Representative Claim
Claim 14 is representative [“Rep. Claim 14”] of the subject matter under examination and recites, in part, emphasis added by Examiner to identify limitations with normal font indicating the abstract idea exception, bold limitations indicating additional elements. Each limitation is identified by a letter for later use as a shorthand notation in referencing/describing each limitation. Portions of the claim use italics to identify intended use limitations2 and underline, as needed, in further describing the abstract idea exception:
[A] 14. A sales data processing system, comprising: a server for storing information and facilitating processing; a plurality of first processing components each operated by a store clerk; and a corresponding plurality of a second processing components each operated by a customer, each first processing component coupled with a corresponding second processing component, wherein
[B] each first processing component includes
[B1] a commodity registration component configured to perform, based on an operation of the store clerk, commodity registration processing of a commodity purchased by the customer, [and]
[B2] […]3 a notification component configured to receive the notification from the second processing component and notify the store clerk of the cancellation of the commodity,
[C] each second processing component includes
[C1] a declaration component configured to receive a declaration of cancellation of a part or all of commodities subjected to the commodity registration processing, and
[C2] a notification component configured to notify the first processing component of the cancellation of the commodity by the declaration component, […]2 and
[C3] […] a first acquisition component configured to acquire information on the commodity to be cancelled, which is designated based on the operation of the store clerk,
[C4] a cancellation processing component configured to perform cancellation processing of the commodity for which the information is acquired by the first acquisition component among the commodities subjected to the commodity registration processing, and
[C5] a settlement processing component configured to perform, based on an operation of the customer, settlement processing of the commodities subjected to the commodity registration processing performed by the first processing component except for the commodity subjected to the cancellation processing performed by the cancellation processing component.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 14 recites “A sales data processing system” in Limitation A that performs a series of steps (functions) that culminates in “settlement processing of the commodities subjected to the commodity registration processing … except for the commodity subjected to the cancellation processing” in Limitation C5, which recites commercial or legal interactions under the organizing human activity exception because a “sales data system” that culminates in “Settlement processing” recites “sales activities or behaviors, and business relations” between two people. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Limitations B1, B2, C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5 are the required steps and data inputs required for “settlement processing” and therefore, recite the same exception. Id.
Alternatively4, Limitations B1, B2, C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5, as drafted, recite the abstract idea exception of mental processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of the generic computer components indicated in bold. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
. . .
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). For example, but for the generic computer components claim language, here, Limitations B1, B2, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, recite collecting information (Limitations B1 (part), B2 (part), C1, C2, C3, C4) and analyzing it (Limitations C5 (part)) and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Limitations B1 (part), B2 (part), C5 (part, as interpreted)) where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. For example, as interpreted, Limitation C5 settlement processing is interpreted as (a) displaying settlement information (total, deposit, change); (b) conducting payment (cash or non-cash); and (c) dispensing a receipt. Limitations C5(b) and (c) are metal processes that are practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to conduct a payment and dispense a receipt. Limitations C5(b) and (c) cover any solution with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which is so broad as to encompass mental processes. Likewise, the “cancellation processing” as recited in Limitation C5 is also a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it also requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion” to do so in any possible way, including menta processes.
If a claim limitation under BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the pending claims recite the combination of these abstract idea exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Rep. Claim 14 does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. The additional elements are: a server, a plurality of first processing components that includes a commodity registration component and notification component, and a corresponding plurality of a second processing components that include a declaration component, a [second] notification component, a first acquisition component, a cancellation processing component, and a settlement processing component.
Regarding the server, a plurality of first processing components that includes a commodity registration component and notification component, and a corresponding plurality of a second processing components that include a declaration component, a [second] notification component, a first acquisition component, a cancellation processing component, and a settlement processing component, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them or describes them using exemplary language as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., Spec. ¶¶ 39, 67, Fig. 3 (Registration machine 1 (first processing components) is a generic computer with a CPU 11, ROM 12, RAM 13, and memory unit 14, all connected via a data bus 15, with the CPU, ROM, and RAM forming a control unit 100 that executes stored control programs (commodity registration component, notification component)); ¶¶ 46, 73, Fig. 4 (Checkout machine 3 (second processing component) implemented is a generic computer with a CPU 31, ROM 32, RAM 33, and memory unit 34 connected via a data bus 35, with the CPU, ROM, and RAM forming a control unit 300 that executes stored control programs (a declaration component, a [second] notification component, a first acquisition component, a cancellation processing component, and a settlement processing component)); ¶ 53, Fig. 5 (server is a generic computer, including CPU 51, ROM 52, RAM 53, and memory unit 54 connected via a data bus 55, forming a control unit 500 that performs server control processing by running a stored control program); ¶ 67 (Control unit 100 “functions as” the commodity registration unit 101, notification unit 102, selection unit 103, second acquisition unit 104, and transmission unit 105 by executing a control program stored in ROM 12 or the control program unit 141 of memory unit 14.); ¶ 73 (Control unit 300 “functions as” the declaration unit 301, notification unit 302, first acquisition unit 303, cancellation processing unit 304, and settlement processing unit 305 by executing a control program stored in ROM 32 or the control program unit 341 of memory unit 34);
The generic processor, here, appears to perform calculations (functions) that are programmed by software. Spec. ¶¶ 39, 46, 53, Figs. 3, 4, 5. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow.
The displaying steps, (Limitations B1 (part), B2 (part), C5 (part, as interpreted), fail to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements, a practical application, or inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(h) (citing Electric Power Group). Further, requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer also does not provide a practical application or inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Limitations A, B, and C describes the plurality of first processing components and corresponding plurality of a second processing components “coupled” in some way. Limitations A, B, and C further describes the server, plurality of first processing components and corresponding plurality of a second processing components performing the steps of the claimed invention. This takes generic hardware/software and describes the functions of receiving, storing, and transmitting data (instructions) between the processor and memory device, which merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Limitations B1, B2, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 describe the server, plurality of first processing components and corresponding plurality of a second processing components, performing the steps of the claimed invention, which represents the abstract idea exception itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception itself simply adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2), or generically recites an effect of the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea.
Rep. Claim 14 is not substantially different than Independent Claims 1 and 8 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 14. Independent Claims 1 and 8 contain no additional elements. Therefore, Independent Claims 1 and 8 are also directed to the same abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 14 fails Step 2B because the claim as whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
The pending claims in their combination of additional elements is not inventive. First, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Second, each additional element represents a currently available generic computer technology, used in the way in which it is commonly used (individually generic). Last, Applicant’s Specification discloses that the combination of additional elements is not inventive. Spec., ¶ 107 (steps/functions may be performed in any order); ¶¶ 39, 46, 53, 67, 73, Figs. 3, 4, 5 (known and generic (exemplary) computer equipment as explained and cited supra.)
Thus, Examiner finds the additional elements of Rep. Claim 14 are elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activity in the particular field of this invention based on Applicant’s own disclosure5. Spec. ¶¶ 39, 46, 53, 67, 73, Figs. 3, 4, 5; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Specifically, Applicant’s Specification discloses the recited additional elements (i.e., the server, a plurality of first processing components that includes a commodity registration component and notification component, and a corresponding plurality of a second processing components that include a declaration component, a [second] notification component, a first acquisition component, a cancellation processing component, and a settlement processing component) are limited to generic computer components. These elements do no more than “apply” the recited abstract idea(s) on a known computer (e.g., server) and computer-related components. The Examiner also finds the functions of receiving, storing, transmitting, displaying, and processing (e.g., performing mathematical operations on) data, described in Limitations A, B, B1, B2, C, C1–5 are all normal functions of a generic computer.
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements in combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea at a high level of generality. Thus, Rep. Claim 14 does not provide an inventive concept.
Rep. Claim 14 is not substantially different than Independent Claims 1 and 8 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 14. Independent Claims 1 and 8 contain no additional elements. Therefore, Independent Claims 1 and 8 also do not recite an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims are dependent on Independent Claims and include all the limitations of the Independent Claims. Therefore, all dependent claims recite the same Abstract Idea. Dependent claims do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application or recite an inventive concept because the additional elements: (1) are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; and/or (2) further limit the abstract idea exception of the Independent Claims. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 17, and 18 all recite “wherein” clauses that further limits the abstract idea of the Independent Claims but contains the additional elements of: a second acquisition component (Claims 2, 15); a transmission component (Claims 2, 15); a selection component (Claims 3, 16); a display component (Claims 4, 17); and a customer display component (Claims 5, 18). For the same reasoning as explained for the “memory” in Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B, supra, these additional elements do not provide a practical application or inventive concept because it is amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception with a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f). An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims and contain no additional elements. Regarding the “icon on the customer display” and its operation by “tapping” or swiping” (Claims 7, 20), a web browser’s back and forward button functionality is not a practical application or inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(vi) (citing Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, recite additional limitations that form part of the same abstract idea exception as recited in Independent Claims and contain no additional elements. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Conclusion
Claims 1–20 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 14 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims1, 2, 5–15, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haraguchi (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0240087) [“Haraguchi”] in view of Yoshimoto (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0010259) [“Yoshimoto”], and further in view of Catoe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,595,029) [“Catoe”]
Regarding Claim 1, Haraguchi discloses:
A sales data processing system, comprising: a first processing component operated [commodity data registration apparatuses 10] by a store clerk; and a second processing component [settlement apparatuses 20] operated by a customer,
(See at least ¶ 18, “The checkout system 1 includes commodity data registration apparatuses 10 operated by checkers Cl, such as store clerks, and settlement apparatuses 20 operated by shoppers C2, which in some contexts may also be referred to as store customers.”)
wherein the first processing component [commodity data registration apparatus 10] includes a commodity registration component [registering section 1504] configured to perform, based on an operation of the store clerk, commodity registration processing of a commodity purchased by the customer,
(See at least ¶ 75, “The checker Cl inputs commodity codes into the commodity data registration apparatus 10 by causing the scanner 101 to read code symbols of the commodities to be purchased.” “the registering section 1504 acquires information related to the specified commodity, such as a commodity classification, a commodity name, and a unit price and along with an entered number being purchased, and registers this information as sales data.” ¶ 58. The “commodity data registration apparatus 10,” has a “control section 150” that contains the “registering section 1504,” which performs the claimed functions. Fig. 5; see also ¶¶ 18, 27, 29.).
[…]
a settlement processing component configured to perform, based on an operation of the customer, settlement processing of the commodities subjected to the commodity registration processing performed by the first processing component […];
(See at least ¶ 73, “the settling section 2502 of the settlement apparatus 21 executes the settlement processing by cash (cash settlement method) on the basis of the total amount included in the sales registration information and cash (bills and coins) deposited into the money depositing port 2041 by shopper C2. The settling section 2502 of the settlement apparatus 22 executes the settlement processing (electronic settlement method) on the basis of the total amount included in the sales registration information and the electronic settlement information read from the card-type medium using the card reader writer 208.” “The present shopper C2 then executes settlement processing in the settlement apparatus 20 using the desired settlement method.” ¶ 79.)
Haraguchi discloses a registration apparatus [first processing component] operated by a store clerk and a settlement apparatus operated by a customer, with the registration apparatus performing item/sales registration based on clerk operations and the settlement apparatus [second processing component] performing settlement based on customer operation. Haraguchi does not disclose the cancellation functions and the associated cancellation notifications. Thus, Haraguchi does not disclose but Yoshimoto discloses:
a declaration component configured to receive a declaration of cancellation of a part or all of commodities subjected to the commodity registration processing, and
(See at least ¶ 42, “(2) A selection receiving unit 20b configured to receive selection of a commodity as a cancellation target out of commodities indicated by sales data registered in the sales data registration area 22a … the selection receiving unit 20b displays a cancellation screen 120 … and receives, according to the operation of the operation unit 11, selection of a commodity as a cancellation target out of sales data displayed as a list in the screen 120.” See also, ¶¶ 43, 44.)
a notification component configured to notify the first processing component [POS terminal 2] of the cancellation of the commodity by the declaration component,
(See at least ¶ 45, “(5) An output unit 20e configured to output the sales data registered in the sales data registration area 22a to the POS terminal 2. In particular, in this embodiment, the output unit 20e outputs the sales data to the POS terminal 2 through radio communication performed by using the radio communication unit 26a.” The “output the sales data” occurs after cancellation, ¶¶ 42, 43, 44, and by the “handy terminal 4”. ¶ 40. These paragraphs describe the output unit 20e functioning to notify the POS terminal of the updated (post-cancellation) sales data based on customer cancellation declaration.)
the first processing component further includes a notification component configured to receive the notification from the second processing component and notify the store clerk of the cancellation of the commodity, and
(See at least ¶ 70, “The cancellation screen 120 shown in the figure is displayed when two items of the commodity B are cancelled from the sales data registration area 22a shown in FIG. 4 … such that cancelled sales data and the other sales data can be visually distinguished, a cancellation section 121b in which sales data with all or a part of the number of sold items cancelled is displayed … in a background color or a character color different from that of sections where the other sales data is displayed.”)
the second processing component further includes a first acquisition component configured to acquire information on the commodity to be cancelled,
(See at least ¶ 42, “(2) A selection receiving unit 20b configured to receive selection of a commodity as a cancellation target out of commodities indicated by sales data registered in the sales data registration area 22a.” “(3) An input receiving unit 20c configured to receive the input of the number of items to be cancelled of the commodity, the selection of which is received by the selection receiving unit 20b.” ¶ 43.)
which is designated based on the operation of the store clerk,
(Yoshimoto teaches “a first acquisition component configured to acquire information on the commodity to be cancelled, which is designated based on the operation of the [customer],” not store clerk as claimed. See rejection, prior limitation.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Haraguchi’s sales data processing system to reassign the known designation function to acquire information on the commodity to be cancelled from the customer to the clerk, to manage cancellation within Haraguchi’s semi-self-service workflow.
Haraguchi teaches a checkout architecture in which different human actors (a store clerk operating the commodity data registration apparatus 10 and a shopper operating the settlement apparatus 20) perform different portions of the checkout process on different terminals, each equipped with displays and input devices. Yoshimoto teaches a terminal interface in which a user selects a registered commodity for cancellation and inputs the number of items to be cancelled, with a control unit deducting the input number from stored sales data.
Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, or simply substituting one known element (the clerk as operator) for another (the customer as operator), renders the combination obvious where, as here, the reassignment of a known user-interface function between known operators would have been recognized as a predictable variation that does not alter the underlying sales-data cancellation operation. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
a cancellation processing component configured to perform cancellation processing of the commodity for which the information is acquired by the first acquisition component among the commodities subjected to the commodity registration processing, and
(See at least ¶ 44, “(4) A cancellation control unit 20d configured to deduct the number of items, the input of which is received by the input receiving unit 20c, from the number of sold items added to the sales data of the commodity as the cancellation target registered in the sales data registration area 22a.” See also, ¶ 69)
a settlement processing component configured to perform, based on operation of the customer, settlement processing of the commodities […] except for the commodity subjected to the cancellation processing performed by the cancellation processing component.
(See at least ¶ 69, “the CPU 20 combines the received commodity information and the number of sold items to create sales data and registers the sales data in the sales data registration area 22a.” Later, “the CPU 20 receives, as the number of items to be cancelled, the numerical value input to the number-of-items display area 132a and subtracts the received number of items from the number of sold items of the sales data registered in the sales data registration area 22a. If the number of sold items of the commodity related to the sales data shown in the selection section 121a is one in the processing in Act 23 (No in Act 23), the CPU 20 reduces the number of sold items of the sales data of the commodity registered in the sales data registration area 22a to zero.” See also, ¶ 70. Settlement uses the resulting sales data (total price calculation and final output). ¶ 56. Settlement performed by the customer. ¶¶ 50, 55.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the second processing component includes a declaration component configured to receive a declaration of cancellation of a part or all of commodities subjected to the commodity registration processing, and a notification component configured to notify the first processing component of the cancellation of the commodity by the declaration component, the first processing component further includes a notification component configured to receive the notification from the second processing component and notify the store clerk of the cancellation of the commodity, and the second processing component further includes a first acquisition component configured to acquire information on the commodity to be cancelled, a cancellation processing component configured to perform cancellation processing of the commodity for which the information is acquired by the first acquisition component among the commodities subjected to the commodity registration processing, and a settlement processing component configured to perform … settlement processing, except for the commodity subjected to the cancellation processing performed by the cancellation processing component, as explained by Yoshimoto, to the known invention of Haraguchi, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to implement a predictable and routine division of labor between clerk-side registration and customer-side cancellation and settlement so as to streamline checkout operations, reduce clerk workload, and improve customer throughput in semi-self-service or self-checkout systems, all of which are expressly recognized goals in these references and would have logically prompted such a combination.
Haraguchi and Yoshimoto disclose all the limitations of Claim 1 as indicated supra. Alternatively, Examiner provides Catoe to teach designating the commodity to be cancelled based on operation of the store clerk.
the second processing component [customer device] further includes a first acquisition component configured to acquire information on the commodity to be cancelled, which is designated based on the operation of the store clerk,
(See at least col. 19:58–63, “store personnel may remotely authorize removal of an item located within a transaction, which is currently in the process of being completed by the customer from a pay-station. The remote device used by the personnel could be, for example, a hand held device or computer connected to the store network.” The pay station receives and uses that remote authorization identifying the item to perform the removal. This the second processing device (customer device) acquiring information about the clerk-designed item to be removed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the limitation that the second processing component further includes “a first acquisition component configured to acquire information on the commodity to be cancelled, which is designated based on the operation of the store clerk, as explained by Catoe, to the known checkout system of Haraguchi, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to enable clerk-authorized item removal at the customer-operated settlement device to streamline correction of registered items and improve customer throughput in semi-self-service or self-checkout systems, all of which are expressly recognized goals in these references and would have logically prompted such a combination.
Regarding Claim 2, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe disclose:
The sales data processing system according to claim 1 and the [second] processing component [customer device] further includes a first acquisition component configured to acquire information on the commodity to be cancelled, which is designated based on the operation of the store clerk
Haraguchi does not disclose but Catoe discloses
wherein the first processing component [clerk device] further includes a second acquisition component configured to acquire information on the commodity to be cancelled, which is designated based on the operation of the store clerk, and
(See at least col. 19:58–61, “store personnel may remotely authorize removal of an item located within a transaction, which is currently in the process of being completed by the customer from a pay-station.” The attendant work station (AWS 135), Fig. 2D and associated text col. 8:9–11, is where “store personnel may remotely authorize removal of an item” “The claim term “second” is interpreted as merely numbering to distinguish the two claimed acquisition components.)
a transmission component configured to transmit to the second processing component [pay station], commodity cancellation information related to the acquired information, the first acquisition component [on customer device per claim 1] acquires the cancellation information transmitted by the transmission component, and
(See at least col. 19:58–61, “store personnel may remotely authorize removal of an item located within a transaction, which is currently in the process of being completed by the customer from a pay-station.” The pay station receives and uses that remote authorization identifying the item to perform the removal. Thus, the AWS 135 necessarily has a clerk-side transmission path to the pay station.)
the cancellation processing component performs the cancellation processing of the commodity related to the cancellation information acquired by the first acquisition component.
(See at least col. 19:54–61, “Consumers are also able to remove an item from the transaction without the need to repeat the item entry for the transaction either with or without attendant being alerted and with or without attendant guidance and approval. For example, store personnel may remotely authorize removal of an item located within a transaction, which is currently in the process of being completed by the customer from a pay-station.”)
For Catoe, the resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 5, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe disclose:
The sales data processing system according to claim 1 and the second processing component
Haraguchi does not explicitly disclose but Catoe discloses
wherein the second processing component [customer device] includes a customer display component for the customer [consumer guidance module] and
(See at least col. 14:63–4, “The [consumer guidance] module may also display messages to the consumer, providing corrective guidance”
a store clerk display component for the store clerk, and
(See at least Fig. 2D, element 135)
the store clerk display component displays commodity information related to the commodities subjected to the commodity registration processing, the commodities including the commodity to be cancelled.
(See at least col. 12:48–51, “a Multiple Photo module that associates the various photos with a particular item that 50 was scanned and then organizes and presents them at the AWS screen 188 to the attendant.” When an exception passes the scan tunnel, “the system places the exception in queue and shows the item on the screen 188 for the attendant.” Col. 11:32–4. The attendant selects the exception on the screen 188 and performs an action, then “the item is removed from the screen 188 and exceptions listing and either cancelled or placed in the transaction listing.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the limitation that the second processing component further includes “a customer display component for the customer and a store clerk display component for the store clerk, and the store clerk display component displays commodity information related to the commodities subjected to the commodity registration processing, the commodities including the commodity to be cancelled, as explained by Catoe, to the known checkout system of Haraguchi, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to improve checkout usability and efficiency by providing both the customer and the clerk with clear, contemporaneous item-level information, including items to be removed, to reduce errors in checkout.
Regarding Claim 6, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe disclose:
The sales data processing system according to claim 5 and the customer display component
Haraguchi does not disclose but Yoshimoto discloses:
wherein the customer display component displays an option for selecting the cancellation of the commodity subjected to the commodity registration processing.
(See at least Fig 8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the limitation that the customer display component displays “an option for selecting the cancellation of the commodity subjected to the commodity registration processing, as explained by Yoshimoto, to the known checkout system of Haraguchi, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to enhance user control and error recovery in Haraguchi’s semi-self-checkout system by allowing the customer with the customer facing display to directly initiate cancellation of an item purchased in error, reducing reliance on the clerk to catch errors.
Regarding Claim 7, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe disclose:
The sales data processing system according to claim 6 and the customer
Haraguchi further discloses:
wherein the customer selects [the settlement method and operates settlement steps] subjected to the commodity registration processing on the customer display by tapping an icon on the customer display or swiping the icon on the customer display.
(See at least ¶ 33, “The display operation panel 206 includes a display 2061 and a touch panel 2062 … The display 2061 displays an image according to control by the information processing apparatus 202. The touch panel 2062 is provided on a display surface of the display 2061 and outputs information based on a touched screen position to the information processing apparatus 202.” See also, ¶¶ 37, 24, 25, 26, 61. The customer chooses which settlement apparatus to use (cash or electronic) and settlement steps. ¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 33, 35, 37, 73–79.)
Haraguchi does not disclose the customer selecting individual commodities for cancellation. Thus, Haraguchi does not disclose but Yoshimoto discloses:
the customer selects the cancellation of the commodity subjected to the commodity registration processing on the customer display
(See at least Fig. 7. Interaction is by physical buttons. Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined “the customer selects the cancellation of the commodity subjected to the commodity registration processing on the customer display, as explained by Yoshimoto, to the known checkout system of Haraguchi, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to improve the semi-=self-checkout workflow by showing the customer, using the same customer-facing display already employed for settlement selection, to enhance user control and error recovery in Haraguchi’s semi-self-checkout system by allowing the customer with the customer facing display to directly initiate cancellation of an item purchased in error, reducing reliance on the clerk to catch errors.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 1 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe for the same rationale presented in Claim 1 supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe disclose:
The sales data processing method according to claim 8, further comprising:
The remaining limitations of Claim 9 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 8 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe for the same rationale presented in Claim 8 supra.
Regarding Claim 10, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe disclose:
The sales data processing method according to claim 9
Haraguchi does not disclose but Yoshimoto discloses:
further comprising: selecting whether to perform a cancellation operation or to perform the cancellation operation.
(See at least ¶ 42, “(2) A selection receiving unit 20b configured to receive selection of a commodity as a cancellation target out of commodities indicated by sales data registered in the sales data registration area 22a.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined “selecting whether to perform a cancellation operation or to perform the cancellation operation, as explained by Yoshimoto, to the known checkout system of Haraguchi, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to optimize and improve clerk/customer workflow at the point of sale by allowing the customer with the customer facing display to directly initiate cancellation of an item purchased in error, reducing reliance on the clerk to catch errors.
Regarding Claim 11, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe disclose:
The sales data processing method according to claim 10
Haraguchi further discloses:
further comprising: displaying an option selectable by the store clerk.
(See at least ¶ 67, “For example, the selecting section 1507 may display, on the display 104, a selection screen showing as options each settlement apparatuses 20 capable of executing the desired settlement method and an operation on the selection screen may be used to select a particular settlement apparatus 20 … If one settlement apparatus 20 is selected by the checker Cl from the selection screen, then selecting section 1507 selects the settlement apparatus 20 according to the selection of the checker Cl.”)
Regarding Claim 12, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe disclose:
The sales data processing method according to claim 8
The remaining limitations of Claim 12 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 5 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe for the same rationale presented in Claim 5 supra.
Regarding Claim 13, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe disclose:
The sales data processing method according to claim 12
The remaining limitations of Claim 13 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 6 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe for the same rationale presented in Claim 6 supra.
Regarding Claim 14, Haraguchi discloses:
A sales data processing system, comprising: a server [store server] for storing information [registration] and facilitating processing [settlement processing]; a plurality of first processing components [Fig. 1, commodity data registration apparatuses 10] each operated by a store clerk; and a corresponding plurality of a second processing components [Fig. 1, settlement apparatuses 20] each operated by a customer,
(See at least ¶ 18, “The checkout system 1 includes commodity data registration apparatuses 10 operated by checkers Cl, such as store clerks, and settlement apparatuses 20 operated by shoppers C2, which in some contexts may also be referred to as store customers.” “The control section 150 can communicate with a store server (not shown in the figure) as well as the settlement apparatus 20 … The store server generally performs overall management of registration processing performed in the commodity data registration apparatus 10 and settlement processing performed in the settlement apparatus 20.” ¶ 45.)
each first processing component coupled with a corresponding second processing component,
(See at least ¶ 76, “When registration for one sales transaction is completed, the commodity data registration apparatus 10 selects one of the settlement apparatuses 20 capable of executing the settlement method desired by the shopper C2 and transmits the sales registration information to the settlement apparatus 20.” See also ¶ 96 (“In the configuration of the checkout system 2, a set of the commodity data registration apparatus 10 and the settlement apparatuses 23 provides a checkout system of a two-person type.”)).
The remaining limitations of Claim 14 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 1 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe for the same rationale presented in Claim 1 supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 14.
Regarding Claims 15 and 18, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe disclose:
The sales data processing system according to claim 14
The remaining limitations of Claims 14 and 15 are not substantively different than those presented in Claims 2 and 5 respectively, and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe for the same rationale presented in Claims 2 and 5 respectively, supra.
Regarding Claim 19, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe disclose:
The sales data processing system according to claim 18
The remaining limitations of Claim 19 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 6 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe for the same rationale presented in Claim 6 supra.
Regarding Claim 20, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe disclose:
The sales data processing system according to claim 19
The remaining limitations of Claim 20 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 7 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe for the same rationale presented in Claim 7 supra.
Claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, Catoe and further in view of Namura et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 2015/0213425) [“Namura”]
Regarding Claim 3, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe disclose:
The sales data processing system according to claim 2 and the first processing component [clerk device]
Haraguchi further discloses
wherein the first processing component [clerk device] includes a selection component configured to select whether to perform [settlement] operation using the first processing component or perform the [settlement] operation using the second processing component.
(See at least Fig. 5, “selecting section 1507” and associated text ¶ 53 (identifying the “commodity data registration apparatus 10” having the “selecting section 1507”). “The selecting section 1507 identifies one settlement apparatus 20 as a shopper-selected settlement apparatus 20 … This shopper-selected settlement apparatus is then the transmission destination for the sales registration information from the commodity data registration apparatus 10.” “[T]he selecting section 1507 may display, on the display 104 [clerk device], a selection screen showing as options each settlement apparatuses 20 capable of executing the desired settlement method and an operation on the selection screen may be used to select a particular settlement apparatus 20” ¶ 67. “The selecting section 1507 may also acquire operational states of each of the settlement apparatuses 20 and automatically select one settlement apparatus 20 on the basis of these operation states and shopper C2's settlement method selection.” ¶ 68.
Haraguchi discloses a “commodity data registration apparatus 10” (the claimed first processing component) that includes a “selection section 1507” (the claimed selection component) that selects among multiple alternative downstream checkout devices (i.e., settlement apparatuses 20) and determines to which settlement apparatus the settlement transaction data will be sent.). Haraguchi does not teach the claimed cancellation operation that the “selection control 1507” of Haraguchi is choosing between. Thus, Haraguchi does not disclose but Yoshimoto discloses:
a cancellation operation
(See at least ¶ 42, “(2) A selection receiving unit 20b configured to receive selection of a commodity as a cancellation target out of commodities indicated by sales data registered in the sales data registration area 22a.” See also, ¶¶ 60–63.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cancellation operations as explained by Yoshimoto with the selecting section 1507 of Haraguchi’s registration apparatus 10, with a reasonable expectation of success. Haraguchi explicitly introduces a selection component in the clerk-operated registration device that routes transaction information to different downstream settlement apparatuses to avoid bottlenecks and improve overall settlement efficiency by separating cash versus electronic settlement processing (Haraguchi ¶¶ 3–6, 14, 66–68, 80–82). Yoshimoto, in the same checkout context, teaches that allowing a customer-operated device to perform flexible cancellation of registered items reduces time and labor required for cancellation and improves operability and store impression (Yoshimoto ¶¶ 6, 9, 10, 72–75). It would therefore have been a straightforward and predictable design choice to configure Haraguchi’s existing selecting section to also select whether cancellation is performed locally at the first processing component or delegated to the second processing component implementing Yoshimoto’s cancellation functions, with the motivation to provide operational flexibility in where transaction-related processing (such as cancellation) is performed in a checkout system, thereby reducing workload bottlenecks, improving checkout efficiency, and enabling the clerk-side registration device to dynamically direct cancellation tasks either locally or to the customer-side device based on system state and operational conditions. Because both Haraguchi’s selection logic and Yoshimoto’s cancellation logic are fully implemented and operate on the same type of transaction data in the same retail checkout domain, a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully integrating them in the manner described to obtain these predictable benefits of improved flexibility and throughput.
The combination of Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catie disclose all the limitations of Claim 3. Alternatively, Examiner provides Namura to independently confirm that such selection modules in clerk-side commodity data registration apparatus were conventional in the art at the time of filing the present application. Namura, Claim 3 (“The commodity data registration apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the selection module displays a selection screen for receiving the selection of checkout apparatus on a display device, and receives the selection of the one checkout apparatus in response to a selection operation on the selection screen.”)
Namura’s checkout system 101 includes a commodity data registration apparatus 102 operated by a checker (store clerk) and multiple checkout apparatuses 103 operated by customers. Namura, ¶¶ 17, 18. Control section 150 of the commodity data registration apparatus 102, executing program 137, realizes a selection module 157 and a sending module 156, among other functional modules. Namura, ¶¶ 54, 55. When a closing operation is detected, the selection module 157 displays a transmission destination selection screen P2 on the clerk-side display device 114, showing multiple checkout apparatuses 103 as selectable destinations, and receives the operator’s choice. Namura, ¶¶ 74–80, Fig. 8). Upon selection, sending module 156 transmits a checkout data including the commodity information and total amount for one transaction to the selected checkout apparatus. Namura, ¶¶ 80–82. Thus, like Haraguchi, Namura teaches that the first processing component (the clerk-operated commodity data registration apparatus) commonly includes a selection module that chooses among multiple external devices and directs transaction data to the selected device. Namura, ¶¶ 54, 55, 62, 74–82. This corroborates that, at the time of the invention, it was routine to implement such “selection components” in the clerk-side registration device to select where particular transaction-related processing would be performed. Accordingly, even if Haraguchi’s selecting section 1507 is limited to choosing only among settlement apparatuses for payment processing, arguendo, Namura demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill understood it to be conventional to include a selection module in the first processing component that selects between multiple downstream processing devices and transmits transaction data accordingly. Namura, ¶¶ 54, 55, 62, 74–82. In view of both Haraguchi and Namura, extending this well-known selection pattern to also choose the location at which cancellation operations are executed—between the first processing component and the second processing component of Yoshimoto—would have been a predictable use of known design patterns to achieve the expected benefit of operational flexibility in where cancellation is carried out.
Regarding Claim 4, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, Catoe, and Numata disclose:
The sales data processing system according to claim 3 and the first processing component
Haraguchi further discloses
wherein the first processing component includes a display component configured to display an option selectable by the selection component.
(See at least ¶ 67, “For example, the selecting section 1507 may display, on the display 104, a selection screen showing as options each settlement apparatuses 20 capable of executing the desired settlement method and an operation on the selection screen may be used to select a particular settlement apparatus 20.”)
Regarding Claim 16, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, and Catoe disclose:
The sales data processing system according to claim 15
The remaining limitations of Claim 15 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 3, and is therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, Catoe and Namura for the same rationale presented in Claim 3, supra.
Regarding Claim 17, Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, Catoe, and Namura disclose:
The sales data processing system according to claim 16
The remaining limitations of Claim 16 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 4, and is therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Haraguchi, Yoshimoto, Catoe and Namura for the same rationale presented in Claim 4, supra.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/JAMES H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 621 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining “The Katz Exception”)
2 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
3 The claim limitations were reorganized to group under the first or second processing component, as applicable.
4 “It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. … Accordingly, examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible, if a claim limitation(s) is determined to fall within multiple groupings and proceed with the analysis in Step 2A Prong Two.” MPEP § 2106.04(a).
5 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").