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 .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on July 26, 2024 has been entered and made of record. It is noted that there is a typographical error presented in claim with regard to claim limitation “a plurality of images…first area” in lines 5-7. Applicant is advised to add the term “acquiring” to the beginning of the claim limitation. For examination purpose, “acquiring” is assumed to be included.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 7 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they are all method claims.
Claims 1-6 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the recitations of “memory”, “processor” and “instructions” provide sufficient structure to perform all claimed limitations.
Claim 8 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is an article of manufacture claim.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 7 as a presentative claim, the 101 analysis is presented below.
Step 1: It is noted that claim 7 recites a method which is a process. Thus, claim 7 is directed to one of statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Limitations “processing the plurality of images…second area” and “processing...the second area; and computing a third…the second number” are interpreted as practically performed in the human mind and as mathematical calculation, respectively. Further, the these claim limitations are also interpreted as practically performed in the human mind. Thus, these limitations fall into the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract idea and/or fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 7 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: It is noted that claim does include additional elements (i)”acquiring a plurality images…the first area” and (ii)”computer”. With regard to (i), it is nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. With regard to (ii), it is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer and does not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. Thus, these additional elements do not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements, as pointed out in Step 2A prong 2, above are (i)nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant activity and (ii)recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer and do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 7 is not a patent eligible.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus and claim 8 recites a manufacture so each of these claims falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that each of these claims recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 7. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 7 above are incorporated herein. It is also noted that claim 1 recites addition elements “memory” and “processor” and claim 14 recites additional elements “medium” and “computer”. The additional elements “memory”, “processor”, “medium” and “computer” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer. These claims do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1 and 7 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The advanced statements as applied to claims 1 and 7-8 are incorporated hereinafter.
As to claim 2, limitation “wherein the second area includes an area in which a medium having information relating to a settlement method for the product is placed when the information is input to a payment apparatus” is nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. Thus, claim 2 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 3, limitations “wherein the payment apparatus acquires the information from a reading apparatus that reads the information from the medium” and “the second area includes a range in which the reading apparatus is capable of reading the information from the medium” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. Thus, claim 3 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 4, limitations “determining a timing at which the information is input to the payment apparatus, selecting a target image from among the plurality of images by use of the timing, and determining the second number by use of the target image” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. Thus, claim 4 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 5, limitations “not including second and subsequent movements in the second number when the same object moves a plurality of times from the first area to the second area.” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. Thus, claim 5 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider. (U.S. Pat. 5,115,888, referred as Schneider hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1 as a representative claim, Schneider teaches a product quantity determination apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (see figure 6, item 350 (program memory), col. 6 lines 27-32 and col. 24 lines 11-17); and
at least one processor configured to execute instructions to perform operations (see figure 6, item 350 (CPU 351), col. 6 lines 27-32 and col. 24 lines 11-17):
a plurality of images generated by an image capturing unit a camera including, in a capture range, a first area where a product of a payment target is located, and a second area different from the first area (see fig. 1 (camera 18; scanner 14 having scanning surface (it is referred to the so-called first area) where object is placed (item 114 per col. 9 lines 37-38); area 23 where bag 21 is placed (it is referred to the so-called second area); area 29 where bags 24 and 25 are placed); col. 9 lines 65-67; col. 10 lines 9-10 (image on camera display of the produce items placed on the surface of the scanner), 30-31 (camera 18 provides a view of the content of bag 21);
processing the plurality of images, thereby determines a first number being the number of objects located in the first area, and determines determining a second number being the number of objects that have moved from the first area to the second area (see col. 9 lines 37-61 (i.e., scanned product is moved/placed into bag 21; weight of the products); and
computing a third number being the number of the products, by use of the first number and the second number area (see col. 9 lines 37-61 (i.e., scanned product is moved/placed into bag 21; weight of the products; rescanning products due to different weight between product and scale (measured weight and stored weight); and col. 12 lines 11-18 (making sure that no items have been fraudulently placed in the bag 21)).
Regarding claims 7-8, it is noted that each of these claims recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1 and thus are rejected for the same reasons as well.
Regarding claim 2, Schneider further teaches wherein the second area includes an area in which a medium having information relating to a settlement method for the product is placed when the information is input to a payment apparatus (see col. 9 lines 37-41 (bar code is the so-called medium)).
Regarding claim 3, Schneider further teaches wherein the payment apparatus acquires the information from a reading apparatus that reads the information from the medium (see col. 9 lines 37-41 (bar code is the so-called medium)), and the second area includes a range in which the reading apparatus is capable of reading the information from the medium (see col. 9 lines 37-41 (bar code inherently includes a rang which can be either or both the bar code dimension itself or the range of numbers formed the bar code itself)).
Regarding claim 4, Schneider further teaches wherein determining a timing at which the information is input to the payment apparatus (see col. 9 lines 37-61: the time the product is scanned to obtain measured weight), selecting a target image from among the plurality of images by use of the timing (see col. 11 lines 3-6 (visual image of the contents of bag 21)), and determining the second number by use of the target image (see col. 12 lines 11-18 (making sure that no items have been fraudulently placed in the bag 21)).
Regarding claim 5, Schneider further teaches wherein the operations further comprise not including second and subsequent movements in the second number when the same object moves a plurality of times from the first area to the second area (see col. 9 lines 37-61 (customers scan their purchased product, one at a time then place the scanned product into bag 21).
Regarding claim 6, Schneider further teaches wherein the operations further comprise executing predetermined processing when a difference between a fourth number being the number of registered products, and the third number is equal to or more than a criterion value (see col. 9 lines 37-61 (rescan the product or else is performed when weight (measured weight and stored weight) is not equal so the rescanning the product or else is the so-called predetermining process).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
UCHIMURA et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0333005 A1) teaches a product registration apparatus (figure 1, item 10, for example) comprising a camera (para. [0140]), n information acquisition unit 11 and output 12, wherein camera captures image of the products (para. [0140]), unit 11 determines the placement position of a product having production information (para. [0043]) which is bar code (para. [0045]), and unit 12 outputs placement position of the product (para. [0047]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
6/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights