DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 10/24/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 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 claims recite an imaging component, a recognition component, an approval component, a registration component, and a settlement component, at least. These components are interpreted according to their claimed function and include in scope a camera, a computer for image recognition, a networked computer system for communication between locations, and a point-of-sale machine. These components could, with disclosure support, be separate machines or integrated within a single machine, except for the machine required for the remote location, which is not seen as positively claimed. Claims 6 and 16 recite the settlement component is a semi-self POS apparatus. This is interpreted by the specification (paragraph 10) as including a self-checkout machine that is operated mainly by a customer, or a clerk.
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.
Claims 4 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lack of an antecedent basis. These claims recite “the plurality of stores”. If this is the first time this element is mentioned in the claims, it must be acknowledged properly.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: obtaining an image by imaging a commodity in a storage place provided in a store, recognizing the commodity based upon the image, causing a staff to confirm a recognition result and the image at a location different from the store, and receiving approval by the staff for the result, registering a transaction commodity based on the result, and causing a purchaser of the commodity in the storage place to settle a price for the commodity. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically fundamental economic behavior and commercial interactions, including sales activities and inventory management. These limitations are also directed to mental processes including an observation and judgement.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: an imaging component, a recognition component, an approval component, a registration component, and a settlement component, individually and in combination, merely use a computer (see MPEP 2106.05f.) These components are interpreted according to their claimed function and include in scope a camera, a computer for image recognition, a networked computer system for communication between locations, and a point of sale machine. These components could be separate machines or integrated within a single machine, with the exception of the machine required for the remote location, which is not positively claimed. Even in combinations, the claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 12 recite a designation component which is interpreted as part of a general purpose computer to perform the abstract idea(s). Claims 3 and 13 recite store terminals including certain claimed components and a transaction support device including the approval component, and a notification component. Claims 4 and 14 recite the terminals are associated with the storage places in claim 3. Claims 5 and 15 recite store terminals connected to places in stores and a transaction support device with a display and user interface screen for receiving the designation of a commodity. Claims 6 and 16 recite the settlement component is a semi-self POS apparatus. This is interpreted by the specification (paragraph 10) as including a self checkout machine that is also helped by an employee user. Claims 7 and 17 recite the imaging component is a camera. Claims 8 and 18 recite a notification component for notifying a store server. Claims 9 and 19 recite notification data in the form of a code. Claims 10 and 20 recite notification data as including a commodity code as an identifier for the commodity. These limitations are not subject matter eligible when considered alongside the analysis in the rejection(s) of the independent claims.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US 2022/0207969) in view of Herring (US 2016/0110703).
Claims 1 and 11. Howard teaches a transaction processing system, comprising:
an imaging component for obtaining an image by imaging a commodity in a storage place provided in a store; (para. 89 showing imager for item recognition at checkout)
a recognition component for recognizing the commodity reflected in the image based upon the image obtained by the imaging component; (para. 89 showing item recognition; para. 83 showing image data and data for the annotations applied at the remote servers)
a registration component for registering a transaction commodity based on the recognition result approved by the approval component; and (para. 37 decoding image to complete transaction)
a settlement component for causing a purchaser of the commodity in the storage place to settle a price for the transaction commodity registered by the registration component. (para. 79 POS payment mode)
Howard teaches remote analysis and remote external system for manual inspection of the image recognition data in para. 94. It does not, but Herring teaches:
an approval component for causing a staff to confirm a recognition result by the recognition component and the image used by the recognition component to obtain the recognition result at a location different from the store, and receiving approval by the staff for the recognition result by the recognition component; (para. 48 showing remote help to identify unidentified items)
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 system of remote analysis in Howard, with the known technique of remote identification in Herring because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for improved accuracy in checkout procedures. See para. 48 of Herring.
Claims 2 and 12. Howard teaches the transaction processing system according to claim 1. Howard does not, but Herring teaches:
a designation component for receiving a designation by the staff for a commodity different from the recognition result by the recognition component, wherein (para. 48 showing staff designation correct item)
the registration component registers the transaction commodity based on the recognition result approved by the approval component, and registers the commodity designated by the designation component as the transaction commodity. (para. 15 adding item to transaction)
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 system of remote analysis in Howard, with the known technique of remote identification in Herring because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for improved accuracy in checkout procedures. See para. 48 of Herring.
Claims 3 and 13. Howard teaches the transaction processing system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a plurality of store terminals each of which includes the imaging component and the registration component and which is associated with a plurality of storage places; and (para. 76 showing multiple checkout lanes and data readers and imagers)
the store terminal including the imaging component that captures the image used by the recognition component to obtain the recognition result subject to the approval. (para. 76 showing imagers and checkout stations)
Howard does not, but Herring teaches:
a transaction support device equipped with the approval component, wherein the transaction support device further includes a notification component for notifying the store terminal that approval is made by the approval component, (Figure 6, 608 and 610 showing selection or approval of items and notifying terminal/computer)
and the registration component registers the transaction commodity based on the recognition result for which notification of approval by the notification component is received. (para. 45 add item to transaction)
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 system of remote analysis in Howard, with the known technique of remote identification in Herring because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for improved accuracy in checkout procedures. See para. 48 of Herring.
Claims 4 and 14. Howard teaches the transaction processing system according to claim 3, wherein at least some store terminals among the plurality of store terminals are associated with the plurality of storage places defined in the plurality of stores, respectively. (para. 34 showing camera field of view. “Storage places” are interpreted by para. 23 of application’s specification showing camera imaging range including storage place, so as an area to put the items.)
Claims 5 and 15. Howard teaches the transaction processing system according to claim 1,
wherein a plurality of store terminals equipped with the imaging component and respectively connected to the storage places defined in the plurality of stores; (para. 85 showing store enterprise structure)
and a transaction support device equipped with the approval component, wherein the transaction support device includes a designation component for receiving designation by the staff for a commodity different from a recognition result by the recognition component, (para. 48 showing staff designation correct item)
and a display for displaying a different user interface screen in order to receive designation by the designation component, depending on which of the plurality of stores the transaction is supported, (para. 48 display for staff to see designation)
and the registration component registers the transaction commodity based on the recognition result approved by the approval component, and registers the commodity designated by the designation component as the transaction commodity. (para. 45 add item to transaction)
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 system of remote analysis in Howard, with the known technique of remote identification in Herring because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for improved accuracy in checkout procedures. See para. 48 of Herring.
Claims 6 and 16. Howard teaches the transaction processing system according to claim 1, wherein the settlement component is a semi-self POS apparatus. (para. 22 assisted/self checkout lane)
Claims 7 and 17. Howard teaches the transaction processing system according to claim 1, wherein the imaging component is camera configured to capture at least one of a still image and a moving image. (para. 33 camera)
Claims 8 and 18. Howard teaches the transaction processing system according to claim 1, further comprising: a notification component that notifies a store server of a start of a transaction. (para. 79 showing annotation of payment portion of transaction)
Claims 9 and 19. Howard teaches the transaction processing system according to claim 8, wherein the notification component generates notification data in a predetermined form including at least one of a store code, a terminal code, and a transaction code. (para. 76 showing MAC address of imager as terminal code)
Claims 10 and 20. Howard teaches the transaction processing system according to claim 1, wherein the recognition component transmits commodity notification data in a predetermined form including a commodity code as an identifier for the transaction commodity. (para. 31 showing decoding by images and providing result to POS)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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 Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
