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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 13-December-2024. Foreign priority has been claimed for JP-2024-017792 in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of 08-February-2024, as the priority date, for applicable claims.
No additional information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed to date.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “performing, by the computing system, processing for showing that the the transaction processing device comprises …” (line 11) has a repeat of “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea, Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As per Claims 1, 7, and 15, the claims recite “an information processing method, comprising:
based image data received from a [cashier] of a plurality of [cashiers], determining, by a [entity] comprising at least one [worker], a presence or an absence result for a user of the [cashier];
setting, by the [entity], a status of the [cashier] based on an event in the [cashier] and the presence or absence result for the user; and
performing, by the [entity], processing for showing that the [cashier] comprises an available [cashier] based on the status.”
The limitation of the claims recited above, considering the claims without the additional elements (e.g. system, device, etc.), under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), recites certain methods of organizing human activities. The method recited above is a process of gathering data (i.e. image data) and providing indications (i.e. status) of available cashiers (i.e. check-out area) in a store to perform transactions, which is fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial interactions. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element of “device”, “component”, “system” “camera”, “sensing component”, “processor”, and “memory” to perform the method recited above by instructing the abstract idea to be performed “by” these generic computer components. These general computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. These elements are generic, off-the-shelf components available to the public, and does not require any specialized hardware or equipment to perform the claimed method, and are merely applied to perform its basic functionalities, such as: receive data and transmit data, as disclosed by Figure 3 and Specification:
[0016] “The processing circuit 10 is equivalent to the central part of the guidance terminal 1. The processing circuit 10 is an element that constitutes a computer of the guidance terminal 1. The processing circuit 10 includes one or more circuits that execute a plurality of processes by a plurality of functions. For example, the circuit is a processor, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), but is not limited thereto. For example, the processor is a CPU (central processing unit) or a GPU (graphics processing unit), but is not limited thereto.”
[0160] “Although the sensor 29 is described as an example of a sensing device in the above-described embodiments, this is not limiting. A camera may be used as an example of a sensing device.”
Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system, or merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification cited above, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2, 10, and 16 recite “wherein: when the event in the transaction processing device comprises a first event and the presence or absence result in the transaction processing device comprises the presence of the user, the status processing component sets the status of the transaction processing device to an in-use state, and when the event in the transaction processing device comprises a second event and the presence or absence result in the transaction processing device comprises the absence of the user, the status processing component sets the status in the transaction processing device to the available state.” The claims provide further steps regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and mere “apply it” is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 3, 11, and 17 recite “further comprising: an acquisition component configured to acquire input information that is input in response to an operation; and a communication processing component configured to transmit the input information to the shown available transaction processing device.” The claims provide further details regarding the additional element “acquisition component” merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 4, 12, and 18 recite “wherein the input information comprises at least one of information on a language used in the transaction processing device and information on purchase of a paid bag.” The claims provide further steps regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and mere “apply it” is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 5, 13, and 19 recite “wherein the guidance processing component comprises one of a smartphone, a tablet terminal, or a personal computer.” The claims provide further details regarding the additional element “guidance processing component” merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 6, 14, and 20 recite “wherein the event comprises information that indicates a start of a user checkout procedure or information that indicates the end of the user checkout procedure.” The claims provide further steps regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and mere “apply it” is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the plurality of transaction processing devices comprise self-service transaction processing devices.” The claim provides further details regarding the additional element “self-service transaction processing devices” merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites “wherein a transaction processing device of transaction processing devices comprises a lamp configured to visually notify the status of a presence or an absence result.” The claim provides further details regarding the additional element “lamp” merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
These additional steps of each claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claim above because they are merely further limiting the rules used to conduct the previously recited abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are sufficient to integrate into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly to the independent claim, each claim recites using a generic computer system to perform the abstract idea as mentioned above. Mere “apply it” is not “significantly more”. Therefore, prong 2 and step 2B analysis are similar to above and these claims are not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1-3, 6-8, 10-11, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiani et al. (US 20240242503 A1) in view of Benkreira et al. (US 10573163 B1).
As per Claims 1, 7, and 15, Musiani discloses an information processing system (See Figure 2 disclosing the self-checkout station), comprising:
a plurality transaction processing devices; at least one memory that stores computing executable instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the computer executable components stored in the at least one memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise ([0055] “The system controller 300 may be configured as part of the point-of-sale or may be independent thereof” or see also [0078] “At Phase 2: After all the items previously in the shopping cart have been scanned and added to a shopping list at a point-of-sale, the shopper pays for the items on the shopping list and leaves the store”):
…
a status processing component configured to set a status in each of the plurality of transaction processing devices based on an event in each of the plurality of transaction processing devices and the presence or the absence result for the user of each of the plurality of transaction processing devices ([0083] “The state machine 330 of FIG. 3B may be used in providing information to a shopper during a self-checkout process in purchasing items at a retail store using a self-checkout station, as shown in FIG. 8A-8E. The state machine 330 may include a number of states and information provided to the shopper may be displayed away from an electronic screen by using a smart projector positioned over the virtual lane 802, where the smart projector may be configured to project words, symbols, lane lines, different colors and/or other illumination techniques (e.g., flash, sequence, etc.) that is visible to the shopper. In an embodiment, audible information may be communicated to the shopper. The state machine provides a shopper with information indicative of a current state and/or transition between states as the shopper perform a self-checkout in purchasing items”), and
a guidance processing component configured to perform processing that shows an available transaction processing device among the plurality of transaction processing devices based on the status in each of the plurality of transaction processing devices ([0084] “State 1 (e.g., gray lights): the self-checkout system is waiting for a new customer to enter the self-checkout region (e.g., projecting “Put Cart Here” information on the floor next to the self-checkout station and optionally within the virtual lane 802). State 1 may be seen in FIG. 8A”).
Although Musiani teaches of a sensing component (e.g. camera) included in the system used to verify the shopping cart position and streamline the item images, which would be obvious that the camera would detect a “presence or absence of the user” based on the shopping cart’s presence, for the purposes of compact prosecution, Benkreira also teaches:
a sensing component configured to detect a presence or an absence result for a user in a plurality of transaction processing devices ([Col 2 Lines 42-47] “Embodiments of the present disclosure provide a user alert method comprising: detecting the presence of a user at a point of sale (POS) device using a camera in data communication with a processor. The camera is configured to observe the presence and movement of a user proximate to the POS device” or see also [Col 2 Lines 30-35] “Embodiments also comprise a camera in data communication with the processor, the camera configured to observe the presence and absence of a user proximate to the POS device and provide a user notification to the processor regarding the presence or absence of the user”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a camera to detect presence or absence of a user as in Benkreira in the system executing the method of Musiani with the motivation of offering to [Col 8 Lines 22-28] reduce false alarms, improve detection accuracy and confidence, thereby improving the reliability of the over-all system as taught by Benkreira over that of Musiani.
As per Claims 2, 10, and 16, Musiani discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, the information processing system according to claim 7, and the information processing method according to claim 15, wherein:
when the event in the transaction processing device comprises a first event and the presence or absence result in the transaction processing device comprises the presence of the user, the status processing component sets the status of the transaction processing device to an in-use state ([0085] “State 2 (e.g., yellow lights): the customer places the cart full of items into a virtual lane defined by projected lines on the floor, and then the lights of the lane lines may turn orange. In an embodiment, State 2 may require or recognize that the shopper places himself or herself in front of the cart or in a location that does not obscure the items within the cart from the overhead camera”), and
when the event in the transaction processing device comprises a second event and the presence or absence result in the transaction processing device comprises the absence of the user, the status processing component sets the status in the transaction processing device to the available state ([0089] “State 6 (e.g., green lights): when the self-checkout, payment, cart reload has been completed, the customer may leave the area and the system may return to state 1. State 6 may also be seen in FIG. 8E”).
As per Claims 3, 11, and 17, Musiani discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, the information processing system according to claim 7, and the information processing method according to claim 15, further comprising:
an acquisition component configured to acquire input information that is input in response to an operation; and a communication processing component configured to transmit the input information to the shown available transaction processing device ([0065] “The user interface smart signs projector controller 326 may be configured to control operation (e.g., light projection, color of light being projected, etc.) of the smart projector 316 as a function of a number of possible inputs, such as an input from the cart pose analyzer 324 indicating that a shopping cart is not oriented properly at the self-checkout area, that the customer made a mistake (e.g., forgot to bag an item), or that the customer's behavior is improper (e.g., did not scan a product prior to placing the product in a shopping bag)”).
As per Claims 6, 14, and 20, Musiani discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, the information processing system according to claim 7, and the information processing method according to claim 15, wherein the event comprises information that indicates a start of a user checkout procedure or information that indicates the end of the user checkout procedure ([0086] “State 3 (e.g., orange lights): the customer begins to pick up the items to scan barcodes (or other machine-readable indicia) of the items one-by-one and to place the items in the bagging area. This process (and state) lasts until all products in the cart have been removed from the cart and added to the shopping list, after which the lights may turn violet. State 3 may be seen in FIG. 8C” or see also [0087] “State 4 (e.g., violet lights): after each of the items is scanned by the point-of-sale (or other single or bulk scanning process), the customer is enabled to proceed with the payment. After successful payment, the lights may turn blue. State 4 may be seen in FIG. 8D”).
As per Claim 8, Musiani discloses the information processing system according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of transaction processing devices comprise self-service transaction processing devices ([0010] “To provide a reduced footprint, user-friendly, dynamically reconfiguration, and reliable/secure self-checkout user-experience, a self-checkout station with both increased flexibility of available space and self-checkout process guidance may be provided”).
Claims 4, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiani, in view of Benkreira, and in view of JOHNSON et al. (US 20130016173 A1).
As per Claims 4, 12, and 18, Musiani may not explicitly disclose, but JOHNSON discloses the information processing device according to claim 3, the information processing system according to claim 11, and the information processing method according to claim 17, wherein the input information comprises at least one of information on a language used in the transaction processing device or information on a purchase of a paid bag ([0006] “in response to receiving the credentials, retrieving a language preference of the user from the user's profile; automatically generating a menu on the display device of the self-service video transaction device in the user's preferred language; and establishing a connection between the self-service video transaction device and a video agent terminal of a video agent that speaks the preferred language”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize retrieving language preference for the self-service transaction device as in JOHNSON in the system executing the method of Musiani with the motivation of offering to [0037] “migrate transactions to a more cost effective environment” and “potentially improve the customer experience and/or leverage the systems and interfaces” as taught by JOHNSON over that of Musiani.
Claims 5, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiani, in view of Benkreira, and in view of Sunder et al. (US 20240403847 A1).
As per Claims 5, 13, and 19, Musiani may not explicitly disclose, but Sunder discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, the information processing system according to claim 7, and the information processing method according to claim 15, wherein the guidance processing component comprises one of a smartphone, a tablet terminal, or a personal computer ([0056] “In a further example, and as shown in FIG. 1, the self-checkout monitoring system 10 may include a store manager device 500, such as a personal computer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize personal computer as the self-checkout monitoring system as in Sunder in the system executing the method of Musiani with the motivation of offering to [0003] “to enable the provision of customer assistance when required” as taught by Sunder over that of Musiani.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiani, in view of Benkreira, and in view of KOFUJI (US 20210304171 A1).
As per Claim 9, Musiani may not explicitly disclose, but KOFUJI discloses the information processing system according to claim 7, wherein a transaction processing device of the plurality of transaction processing devices comprises a lamp configured to visually notify the status of a presence or an absence result (See Figure 2 – light 33, as disclosed [0036] “The warning light 33 is turned on or flashing in red or the like, for example, to inform a store clerk that an anomaly has occurred in the self-POS terminal 20. Additionally, the warning light 33 informs a store clerk that the customer mistakenly operates the self-POS terminal 20. Further, the warning light 33 informs the customer that the customer is operating an alternative device for the self-POS terminal 20”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a lamp to visually notify the status of the self-POS terminal as in KOFUJI in the system executing the method of Musiani with the motivation of offering to improve customer experience by providing a lamp with visual indicators as taught by KOFUJI over that of Musiani.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 8, filed 30-January-2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, considering the claims without the additional elements (e.g. memory, processor, sensing component, etc.), the claims recite an abstract idea (e.g. certain methods of organizing human activities), and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Mere “apply it” is not “significantly more”. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 to 12, with respect to the prior art rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Laserson et al. (US 20230316271 A1) discloses [0080] “In an embodiment of 321 and 330, at 331, the data-driven MLM replenishment activity prediction service identifies the specific transaction terminal status as a condition indicating a given transaction terminal 120 has either reached a media maximum or reached a media minimum that necessitated the given transaction terminal 120 being unavailable for processing any given transaction”.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HENRY H JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5018. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Christine M Tran (Behncke) can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HENRY H JUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights