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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 4 is cancelled, claims 7-8 are newly added, and claims 1, 5, and 6 are amended. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 filed July 29, 2026 are pending and are hereby examined.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
4. 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 broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
5. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
6. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
7. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
8. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
9. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “acquisition unit”, “display control unit”, “correction acceptance unit”, “first settlement unit”, “opening and closing unit”, and “second settlement unit” in claims 1 and 6.
10. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
11. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
14. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 8 are directed to a system, and claim 6 is directed to non-statutory subject matter (see above), however claims 1-3 and 5-8 are statutory classes of invention.
15. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1 and 6 recite an abstract idea of settling transactions while correcting.
The independent claims 1 and 6 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
… configured to acquire, from an external system, information of a commodity obtained by a settler in a commodity sales area of a store, the store including the commodity sales area and a settlement area that are separated with a partition and provided with an entrance for access from the commodity sales area to the settlement area, the entrance including a… that enables the access in an open state and disables the access in a closed state;
… configured to display the information of the commodity acquired by the…;
… configured to accept a correction instruction relating to the information of the commodity;
… configured to perform settlement, based on the information of the commodity acquired by… in a case where the correction instruction is not accepted; and
… configured to discard the information of the commodity acquired by the… and to perform the settlement, based on information of the commodity acquired via… in a case where the correction instruction is accepted; and
… configured to output a first signal for closing the… in a case where the settler enters the settlement area from the commodity sales area via the entrance, and to output a second signal for opening the… in response to an end of the settlement by…
16. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, settling transactions while correcting falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
17. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites settling transactions with correcting with generally recited computer elements such as an acquisition unit, display control unit, display device, correction acceptance unit, first settlement unit, second settlement unit, opening and closing unit, gate, and input device, which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for settling transactions while correcting. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
18. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an acquisition unit, gate, opening and closing unit, display control unit, display device, correction acceptance unit, first settlement unit, second settlement unit, and input device, perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. 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. The claims are not patent eligible.
19. Regarding dependent claim 2, although this claim recites a generally recited notification unit, acquisition unit, first settlement unit, and second settlement unit, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of transaction settlement while correcting, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
20. Regarding dependent claim 3, although this claim recites a generally recited calling unit and acquisition unit, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of transaction settlement while correcting, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
21. Regarding dependent claim 5, although this claim recites a generally recited cancellation acceptance unit, second notification unit, acquisition unit, and opening and closing unit, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of transaction settlement while correcting, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
22. Regarding dependent claim 7, although this claim recites a generally recited gate system, first settlement unit, second settlement unit, and commodity identification system, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of transaction settlement while correcting, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
23. Regarding dependent claim 8, although this claim recites a generally recited action detection system, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of transaction settlement while correcting, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
24. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. The factual inquiries 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.
28. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (US 2021/0192902) in view of Miura et al (US 2022/0050979).
29. Re Claims 1, 6: Sasaki discloses comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire, from an external system, information of a commodity obtained by a settler in a commodity sales area (see [0097] customer can register product by smartphone, [0122] identifies shopping of member to POS terminal, [0167] shopping file is file that stores registration information registered by mobile terminal);
a display control unit configured to cause a display device to display the information of the commodity acquired by the acquisition unit (see Fig. 19, [0244] registration confirmation screen displays list of registered product information);
a correction acceptance unit configured to accept a correction instruction relating to the information of the commodity (see [0256] POS terminal 70 that prohibited execution of settlement process executes correction process, Fig. 19 button to call over employee, [0284] editing means correcting the deferred-product information);
a first settlement unit configured to perform settlement, based on the information of the commodity acquired by the acquisition unit, in a case where the correction instruction is not accepted (see [0243] if determined that shopping information received from host device includes neither deferred-product information nor canceled product information, POS terminal transitions to settlement process; [0246] Then by member operating “accounting key displayed on registration confirmation screen, POS terminal executes the settlement process according to the registration information displayed on registration confirmation screen, then transaction is completed); and
a second settlement unit configured to discard the information of the commodity acquired by the acquisition unit and to perform the settlement, based on information of the commodity acquired via an input device, in a case where the correction instruction is accepted (see [0256] POS terminal that prohibited execution of settlement process executes correction process of deferred-product information according to correction operation of employee, [0258] scan button is disposed in predetermined position in editing screen. By employee operating scan button, POS terminal displays image data from when code information of product was read. It is sufficient to perform editing on editing screen, [0262] Then, by employee editing and updating deferred-product information to addable registered product information in editing screen, as illustrated in Fig. 22, POS terminal corrects and displays deferred-product information on registration confirmation screen, [0267] execute settlement process);
an opening and closing unit configured to close an entrance from the commodity sales area to a settlement area in a case where the settler enters the settlement area in which the settlement apparatus is provided, and to open the entrance in response to an end of the settlement by the first settlement unit or the second settlement unit (see [0114] store entrance).
However, Sasaki fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Miura teaches:
the store including the commodity sales area and a settlement area that are separated with a partition and provided with an entrance for access from the commodity sales area to the settlement area, the entrance including a gate that enables the access in an open state and disables the access in a closed state (see [0058] allows passage when processing successful).
From the teaching of Miura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sasaki’s mobile terminal with Miura’s teaching of open/closed state in order “… for assisting with accounting processing at a store (see Miura [0001]).”
30. Re Claim 2: Sasaki discloses further comprising:
a first notification unit configured to notify the external system of deletion of the
information of the commodity acquired by the acquisition unit in response to an end of the settlement by the first settlement unit or the second settlement unit (see [0246] disclose end of a settlement).
31. Re Claim 3: Sasaki discloses further comprising:
a calling unit configured to output a signal for calling a store clerk in a case where the acquisition unit fails to acquire the information of the commodity (see [0168, 0194, 0239, 0240] calling unit).
32. Re Claim 5: Sasaki discloses further comprising:
a cancellation acceptance unit configured to accept a cancellation instruction of the settlement based on the information of the commodity acquired by the acquisition unit;
and a second notification unit configured to notify the external system of deletion of the information of the commodity acquired by the acquisition unit, if the cancellation instruction is accepted, wherein the opening and closing unit opens the entrance on condition that a response indicating that the deletion of the information of the commodity is permitted
is received from the external system (see [0077-0079] registration cancellation).
33. Re Claim 7: However, Sasaki fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Miura teaches further wherein the gate system opens the gate based on the second signal output in response to the end of the settlement by the first settlement unit or the second settlement unit (see [0058] allows passage when processing successful). From the teaching of Miura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sasaki’s mobile terminal with Miura’s teaching of open/closed state in order “… for assisting with accounting processing at a store (see Miura [0001]).”
34. Re Claim 8: Sasaki discloses further comprises an action detection system, wherein the action detection system detects an action of settler, and the commodity identification system specifies the commodity from a detection result of the action (see [0192] detecting input of mobile terminal).
Examiner Notes
35. The Examiner suggests incorporating dependent claims 8 (dependent on 7), 5, 3, and 2 together into the independent claims. The Examiner suggests clarifying what each of the units are (what kind of hardware). Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
Response to Arguments
36. Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/26 have been fully considered and are not found to be convincing, therefore the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained. With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, the applicant made significant claim amendments to claim 1, therefore the arguments in moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
a) Argument #1: b) Argument #2: Applicant argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 (particular machine)
37. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding particularity or generality of the elements of machine or apparatus, according to MPEP 2106.05(b) again: “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions). Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” In this particular case, the acquisition unit, display control unit, display device, correction acceptance unit, first settlement unit, second settlement unit, opening and closing unit, gate, and input device, in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for check verification.
38. Regarding whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method, again in MPEP 2106.05(b) it states that: “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We are not persuaded by the appellant's argument that the claimed method is tied to a particular machine because it ‘would not be necessary or possible without the Internet.’ . . . Regardless of whether "the Internet" can be viewed as a machine, it is clear that the Internet cannot perform the fraud detection steps of the claimed method").” In this particular case, the acquisition unit, display control unit, display device, correction acceptance unit, first settlement unit, second settlement unit, opening and closing unit, gate, and input device are merely the objects on which the method operates.
39. Regarding whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, again MPEP 2106.05(b) states: “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” In this particular case, the acquisition unit, display control unit, display device, correction acceptance unit, first settlement unit, second settlement unit, opening and closing unit, gate, and input device are merely data gathering, therefore is insignificant extra-solution activity.
40. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of the independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
41. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Milkie (Checkout: A Changing Technology, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
42. 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).
43. 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.
44. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
45. 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.
46. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
47. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
