CTNF 18/890,550 CTNF 81205 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Prosecutorial Standing 2. This communication is in response to the Application filed on 09.19.2024 . Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1-20 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below. Oath/Declaration 3. The Applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63 . Information Disclosure Statement 4. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C) , the Applicant' s submission of the Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) have been acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2) , a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action. Priority/Filing Date 5. Applicant's claim for priority of the Foreign Application filed on 09.26.2023 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the US Application date of 09.26.2023 into consideration. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-35 7. Claim s 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 17/990,232 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same invention . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The mapping of exemplary claim 1 of the immediate application to claim 1 of the Co-pending Application, follows: Current Application Co-pending Application No.: 17/990,232 Claim 1 . A merchandise information processing device , comprising: a communication interface connectable to a product scanner ; and a control unit configured to: receive an image from the product scanner obtained when a user holds a merchandise item in front of an image pickup unit of the product scanner in a scanning operation ; process the image to obtain a merchandise code for the merchandise item in the image by object recognition ; process the image to determine if a hand of the user appears in the image; and save the image to update a dictionary file only if the merchandise code obtained by the object recognition does not match a merchandise code received from the product scanner in association with the image and the hand of the user is determined not to be in the image. Claim 1 . An information processing device for retail merchandise registration systems, the device comprising: a communication interface configured to connect to a plurality of scanner devices and receive a processing request and image data from a scanner device in the plurality of scanner devices ; a processor configured to: compare a present device load value to a threshold load value, and send, via the communication interface, a positive response to the processing request when the present device load is less than the threshold load value and a negative response when the present device load is equal to or greater than the threshold load value; and an image processing unit configured to perform recognition processing on the image data from the scanner device to detect an object depicted in the image data, wherein the processor is further configured to send a recognition result to the scanner device via the communication interface after the recognition processing is performed by the image processing unit . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 8. 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., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to a merchandise information processing device and a merchandise information processing method for use in or with point-of-sale systems for retail stores and the like. Independent claim 1 has been identified as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites a merchandise information processing device, comprising the steps of: receive an image when a user holds a merchandise item in front of an image pickup unit; process the image to obtain a merchandise code for the merchandise item in the image by object recognition; process the image to determine if a hand of the user appears in the image; and save the image to update a dictionary file only if the merchandise code obtained by the object recognition does not match a merchandise code. These limitations collectively describe managing a merchandise information processing method. This activity falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, specifically commercial interaction because the claim involves managing a merchandise information processing device and to update a dictionary file, which is a fundamental economic practice. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), claims that are directed to a merchandise information processing device, implemented on a generic computer technology constitute an abstract idea. Clearly, merchandise information processing device fall under sales activities or behaviors, therefore it would fall under commercial or business relationships, which falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. Further, evidence is cited to: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Bilski v. Kappos, and buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: a communication interface, a product scanner, and a control unit, . However, these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and function as generic computer components. These elements are generic computing components performing their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, such as: receive an image, process the image, save the image, and update a dictionary file . Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality, and do not improve the functioning of a computer or POS system, do not improve the merchandise information processing technology, do not provide a particular machine configuration, and do not define a particular technical mechanism for the merchandise information processing device . The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application . The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. The communication interface, the product scanner, and the control unit are generic computer components performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ( e.g., receiving data, processing image, and updating image ). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. The claim merely uses a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of managing the merchandise information processing device , which fails to add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea ( e.g., merchandise information processing device’ ) without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible . Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS) . Furthermore, claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 define the same that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 9, and 17, are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer functioning in a standard mode of operation or matters that are routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. Additionally, claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS). Allowable Subject Matter 9. Claims 1-20 will not be considered for allowance until a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). 13-03-01 AIA 10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Adato et al., Pub. No.: US 2019/0197561 , is considered the closest prior art to the subject matter of claim 1 of the current application. Adato discloses systems, methods, and devices that can identify products on a shelf, and determine item descriptions and pricing from associated labels. In one embodiment, an image processing system for providing an indication about shelf label accuracy in a store. However, claim 1 of the current application discloses: receive an image from the product scanner obtained when a user holds a merchandise item in front of an image pickup unit of the product scanner in a scanning operation; process the image to obtain a merchandise code for the merchandise item in the image by object recognition; process the image to determine if a hand of the user appears in the image; and save the image to update a dictionary file only if the merchandise code obtained by the object recognition does not match a merchandise code received from the product scanner in association with the image and the hand of the user is determined not to be in the image.” Those limitations when considering the claim as a whole were not found in the Dubois prior art . Conclusion 07-96 AIA 11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 forms have been reviewed and considered . 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday. 13. 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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 14. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 GARCIA ADE Primary Examiner Art Unit 3687 /GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/890,550 Page 2 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/890,550 Page 3 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/890,550 Page 4 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/890,550 Page 5 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/890,550 Page 6 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/890,550 Page 7 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/890,550 Page 8 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/890,550 Page 9 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/890,550 Page 10 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/890,550 Page 11 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/890,550 Page 12 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/890,550 Page 13 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/890,550 Page 14 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/890,550 Page 15 Art Unit: 3627
Prosecution Insights