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 .
Acknowledgement
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration 05/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8 16 and 17 are amended.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 112(d) is withdrawn. However further 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are maintained below.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
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 1-17 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, 8 and 16 recite, “an information processing device” comprising “input unit” and “controller configured to:…perform first processing…the first processing includes object recognition processing using a learning model generated by machine learning,…” it is being interpreted that the claim 1 claims both an apparatus “information processing device” with a “controller” with method steps of using the controller of the information processing device, (i.e., using a learning model). A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. [see MPEP 2173.5(p)(II)]
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1, 8 and 16 are directed to an information processing device. Claim 17 are directed to a method of information processing.
Claims 1, 8 , 16 and 17 are directed to the abstract idea of processing information which can be grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” being related to collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, within in prong one of step 2A (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
For example, claim 1 recites, “perform the first processing…a recognition result of recognizing what product corresponds to an object…using a learning model…,…processing identity data pertaining to the product;… performing second processing of storing the recognition result in a storage device, and then output…an inquiry as to whether or not there is an unprocessed product in response to receiving an input…, the input indicating that the recognition result is acceptable; and perform the first processing again in response for receiving,…, a response to the inquiry as to whether or not there is an unprocessed product…”
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A, the additional elements of the claim such as an input unit, a controller, a display device, image capture device, storage unit are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the additional elements either represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not more than link the abstract idea to an extra solution activity or a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrated the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to the acts of using rules to authorize a financial transaction.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of processing information using computer technology to perform computer functions such as repetitive calculations as well as receiving, processing and storing data which the courts have determined are well-understood routine and conventional. Therefore, the user of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which can not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself [(MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) &(h)].
Dependent claims 8 and 16 are rejected on similar reasons
Claims 2-7 and 9-15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights