DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
For the purpose of prior art consideration, the effective filing date of the instant application is based on the application filed in Japan on September 26th, 2023. However, priority to this date is not perfected until an English translation of the certified copy of the instant application is filed.
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 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.
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 without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in claims 1-18 and “imaging unit” in claim 6.
Claim 1, 6 and 14 – “[A] control unit configured to: disable the abnormality monitoring function…, and enable the abnormality monitoring function when it is determined the LAN cable is connected to the LAN interface” See MPEP 2181. Underlined is the generic placeholder used by the claim and bolded is the functional language. The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claim. Therefore, 112(f) is invoked.
Claim 6 – “[an] imaging unit for capturing images of items being purchased in a sales transaction at a point-of-sale terminal” See MPEP 2181. Underlined is the generic placeholder used by the claim and bolded is the functional language. The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claim. Therefore, 112(f) is invoked.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahany et al. (US 5,790,536) in view of Tsunoda (US 2020/0313990 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, 6 and 14, Mahany teaches:
An information processing apparatus/ A product scanner for commodity registration systems/ An information processing method (See Mahany Col. 62 lines 28-32 – To monitor sales information, the cash registers and include code scanners, such as tethered code scanners, which read codes on product labels or tags as goods are purchased), the product scanner comprising:
an imaging unit for capturing images of items being purchased in a sales transaction at a point-of-sale terminal (See Mahany Col. 70 lines 13-16 – The terminals can also be configured with code reading/image capturing devices, or be is configured to receive input from external code reading/image capturing devices);
a local area network (LAN) interface including an … monitoring function for monitoring whether a communication path to an image recognition apparatus … (See Mahany Col. 44 lines 35-38 – a peripheral LAN might be established when needed to maintain local communication between a code scanner [image recognition apparatus] and the terminal); and
a control unit (See Mahany Col. 40 lines 18-19 – the computing devices generally control the operation of peripheral devices) configured to:
disable the … monitoring function of the LAN interface when it is determined a LAN cable is not connected to the LAN interface (See Mahany Col. 38 lines 36-40 and 59-61 – the Control Point function is either distributed among some or all the devices within the spontaneous LAN. In such scenarios, the interleaved Access Interval approach used for wireless access points [LAN cable is not connected] is employed... Control point devices must monitor the reservation slot for messages addressed to them, but may sleep afterwards [disable monitoring]), and
enable the … monitoring function when it is determined the LAN cable is connected to the LAN interface (See Mahany Col. 42 lines 35-53 – During the premises LAN Access Interval, the peripheral LAN master device monitors the premises LAN control point for SYNC reservation poll and exchanges inbound and outbound message according to the normal rules of the access protocol and Col. 43 lines 62-67 - The premises LAN in the illustrated embodiment includes a hard-wired backbone LAN and access points. A host computer and any other non-mobile network device located in the vicinity of the backbone LAN can be directly attached to the back bone LAN).
While Mahany teaches a product registering system that recognizes products through captured images of product data, wherein the components of said system are connected and monitored through multiple LAN connections (Mahany Col. 44 lines 35-38), Mahany does not explicitly teach that said monitoring is for an abnormality. This is taught by Tsunoda (See Tsunoda ¶ [0039] – the monitoring unit monitors whether there is an abnormality in the own POS terminal from when the own POS terminal is turned on until the power is turned off). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the monitored product registration system of Mahany the use of abnormality monitoring as taught by Tsunoda to obtain operation information of an information processing device without having to spend time in a store (Tsunoda ¶ [0014]), thereby increasing the efficiency of the monitored product registration system of Mahany.
Regarding Claim 2, 7 and 15, modified Mahany teaches:
The information processing apparatus/ The product scanner/ The information processing method according to claim 1, 6 and 14, wherein the control unit is further configured to:
initialize the LAN interface at startup, and
the control unit determines whether the LAN cable is connected to the LAN interface or not immediately after the startup (See Mahany Col. 29 lines 36-44 - In a premises LAN, access points 1401, 1403 and 1405 communicate SYNC information amongst themselves via wired backbone [LAN cable is connected]. In addition, a wireless access point similarly communicates with the access points 1401, 1403 and 1405 via a wireless link [whether the LAN cable is connected to the LAN interface or not]. A portable/ mobile device is initially registered with access point 1401 [immediately after the startup], which acts as a control point for the portable/mobile device)
Regarding Claim 3, 8 and 16, modified Mahany teaches:
The information processing apparatus/ The product scanner/ The information processing method according to claim 2, 7 and 15, wherein the control unit is further configured to:
periodically determine whether the LAN cable is connected to the LAN interface or not after startup (See Mahany Col. 30 lines 11-14 – communication of neighbors' information may also facilitate the initial selection of an access point by a portable/mobile device attaching to the premises LAN for the first time [after startup] and Col. 30 lines 41-46 - roaming portable and mobile computing devices operating in the premises LAN will routinely move between access point coverage areas. At the maximum device velocity and expected coverage area per access point, a mobile device may be expected to cross a NET coverage contour in several seconds [periodically determine whether the LAN cable is connected to the LAN interface or not]).
Regarding Claim 4, 9 and 17, modified Mahany teaches:
The information processing apparatus/ The product scanner/ The information processing method according to claim 3, 8 and 16, wherein the control unit enables the … monitoring function after previously disabling the … function when the LAN cable is connected to the LAN interface after previously being disconnected. (See Mahany Col. 38 lines 36-40 and 59-61 – the Control Point function is either distributed among some or all the devices within the spontaneous LAN. In such scenarios, the interleaved Access Interval approach used for wireless access points [LAN cable is not connected] is employed... Control point devices must monitor the reservation slot for messages addressed to them, but may sleep afterwards [disable monitoring], Col. 42 lines 35-53 – During the premises LAN Access Interval, the peripheral LAN master device monitors the premises LAN control point for SYNC reservation poll and exchanges inbound and outbound message according to the normal rules of the access protocol and Col. 43 lines 62-67 - The premises LAN in the illustrated embodiment includes a hard-wired backbone LAN and access points. A host computer and any other non-mobile network device located in the vicinity of the backbone LAN can be directly attached to the back bone LAN).
While Mahany teaches a product registering system that recognizes products through captured images of product data, wherein the components of said system are connected and monitored through multiple LAN connections (Mahany Col. 44 lines 35-38), Mahany does not explicitly teach that said monitoring is for an abnormality. This is taught by Tsunoda (See Tsunoda ¶ [0039] – the monitoring unit monitors whether there is an abnormality in the own POS terminal from when the own POS terminal is turned on until the power is turned off). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the monitored product registration system of Mahany the use of abnormality monitoring as taught by Tsunoda to obtain operation information of an information processing device without having to spend time in a store (Tsunoda ¶ [0014]), thereby increasing the efficiency of the monitored product registration system of Mahany.
Regarding Claim 5, 10 and 18, modified Mahany teaches:
The information processing apparatus/ The product scanner/ The information processing method according to claim 3, 8 and 16, wherein the control unit determines whether the LAN cable is connected to the LAN interface by checking whether a link speed parameter for the LAN interface has been set (See Mahany Col. 30 lines 61-64 - the premises LAN [the LAN cable is connected to the LAN interface], roaming portable and mobile devices initially select and register with an access point Control Point on the basis of link quality, i.e., signal quality, signal strength and Col. 72 lines 7-10 – communication can be achieved via a telephone jack link at the customer site, if: … link costs or channel speed so justify).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Mahany teaches:
The product scanner according to claim 6, wherein the control unit is further configured to:
detect an encoded product code in a captured image from the imaging unit (See Mahany Col. 62 lines 28-32 – To monitor sales information, the cash registers and include code scanners, such as tethered code scanners, which read codes on product labels or tags as goods are purchased).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Mahany teaches:
The product scanner according to claim 11, wherein the control unit is further configured to:
decode the encoded product code and send a decoded product code to the point-of-sale terminal (See Mahany Col. 62 lines 28-32 – To monitor sales information, the cash registers and include code scanners, such as tethered code scanners, which read codes on product labels or tags as goods are purchased and Col. 76 lines 21-35 - the code reader sends a processing request downstream to the access device... If the access device is an access server, it looks up in its table to determine whether it has the capability to perform the type of processing requested, i.e., decoding. If it does, the access device sends an acknowledge and the code reader forwards the code image signal to the access device for decoding. Once decoded, the information may be re-transmitted to the code reader for display on a screen. In addition, or alternatively, the access device may send a good read signal to the code reader to indicate to the user that the reading operation has resulted in a valid reading).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Mahany teaches:
The product scanner according to claim 11, wherein the control unit is further configured to send the captured image to the image recognition apparatus via the LAN cable if the LAN cable is determined to be connected to the LAN interface (See Mahany Col. 76 lines 5-9 - the code reader, an end-point device, forwards the code image signal downstream in the premises LAN [the LAN cable is determined to be connected to the LAN interface] to the first access server in the network that has the capability of decoding the signal into the usable information represented by the code).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-18 of the instant application are found to comprise patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101. For instance, exemplary independent claim 1:
An information processing apparatus, comprising:
a local area network (LAN) interface including an abnormality monitoring function for monitoring whether a communication path is abnormal; and
a control unit configured to:
disable the abnormality monitoring function of the LAN interface when it is determined a LAN cable is not connected to the LAN interface, and
enable the abnormality monitoring function when it is determined the LAN cable is connected to the LAN interface.
These exemplary limitations show an abnormality monitoring function detecting an abnormal communication path and responsively disabling said abnormality monitoring function when it is determined a LAN cable is not connected to the LAN interface. These features are similar to Example 47 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples with respect to anomaly detection. Independent claims 6 and 14 also show similar limitations as exemplary claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-18 of the instant application are considered to be patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW S WERONSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd A. Obeid can be reached at 5712703324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW S WERONSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627