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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 3/13/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-17, and 19-20 have been examined in this examination.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 14-17, and 19 are acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 3 and 18 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks pages 8-9, Applicant argues the 101 rejection. Here Applicant argues the Examiner’s rejection is a “gist of the invention”, the claims include none of this language, and this rejection is all entirely at a high level analysis untethered from the actual recited claim language.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106 states the following with respect to “recites” a judicial exception under prong one, cited herein:
“Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement.”
Here as detailed above with respect to the Alice decision there is no requirement that the claims recite the specific language identified as the abstract idea, rather as in Alice the claims can merely describe the concept.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Further even if the above was not the case, which the Examiner does not contend based on the above MPEP 2106, the claims clearly recite the functions of a user requesting help from a store clerk, sharing the request with a store clerk, not allowing a user to complete a transaction until the user receives help from a store clerk, and requesting another store clerk to help the user when the first store clerk is unavailable
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea above, in argued claim 1, recite these human activities are instead being performed by the user performing the operations by “a first display unit” displaying images , the store clerk performing operations by “a second display unit” displaying images, and the functions being performed by a processing device comprising a processor, merely result in apply it.
Specifically here the claim merely invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Specifically here the additional elements merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer perform the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Further the additional elements that recite these human activities are instead being performed by the user performing the operations by “a first display unit” displaying images , the store clerk performing operations by “a second display unit” displaying images, and the functions being performed by a processor, merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As detailed above here and found in the 101 rejection below, the Examiner has not improperly hand-waived away as merely computers other machinery as argued by Applicant rather the Examiner has provided reasonings as to why the additional elements amount to no more than apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as defined in MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h) which are limitations previously found by the courts to not result in practical application and or significantly more.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks pages 8-9, Applicant argues non-generic configurations of computers or other machinery related to improvements to such computers and machinery and cites paragraph 0029 and 0005 for support of this argument. The Examiner has carefully considered such cited sections. However, these sections do not disclose non-generic configurations of computers or other machinery to implement the idea. Rather these sections merely disclose using a processing device to assist in a computer transaction. This is nothing more than apply it level recitation as defined in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not result in practical application and or significantly more.
Specifically here the claims merely invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Specifically here the additional elements merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer perform the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
MPEP 2106.05 clearly states mere instructions to apply the exception do not result in an improvement to computers or another technological field, as cited herein:
“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.”
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks pages 9-10, Applicant argues the Ex Parte Desjardins decision. While the Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lacking arguments as to which elements that the Examiner did not adequately address without adequate explanation (other than those arguments previously addressed above in this response to arguments section), the Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds the argument not persuasive.
On remarks pages 10, Based on Applicant’s arguments and amendments the previous 112 second/b rejections have been withdrawn.
On Remarks pages 10-11 with respect to the prior art, Applicant argues Applicant’s amendments specifically “mirror content of the first image on the first display unit to the second display unit as he second image.” Here paragraphs 0037, 0041, and Figure 10 of Leggo teach this limitation. Specifically Leggo teaches a controller can communicate a request or status inquire to each supervisor terminal, POS terminal and a wearable devices (see paragraph 0037), further teaches information about a transaction is provided to a supervisor (see paragraph 0041 and Figure 10). It is noted the plain meaning of mirror includes resemble, here the content on the supervisor screen resembles that of the POS as it relates to the same content (See Figure 10). Further alternatively paragraph 0037 specifically teaches providing the request or status identifier to each of the supervisor terminal, POS terminal and a wearable devices which would also read on the amended “mirror” limitation).
Leggo goes on to teach after the display of the mirrored content resolving issues or alerts and providing them to the POS (see paragraphs 0049 and 0062). Further figure 10 shows information displayed at the customer station (e.g. POS) like your order has been cancelled, etc.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees that Leggo does not teach the claims as amended.
On Remarks pages 12-13, Applicant argues 103 rejection. However the Examiner interprets Leggo to teach the argued limitation. Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 1-2, 4-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) a user requesting help from a store clerk, sharing the request with a store clerk, not allowing a user to complete a transaction until the user receives help from a store clerk, and requesting another store clerk to help the user when the first store clerk is unavailable.
The above recites subject matter of commercial or legal interactions which include agreement in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, which is a certain method of organizing human activities (See MPEP 2106.04 (a)).
Certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims certain human activities of a user requesting help (providing input), providing the request to a store clerk, the store clerk receiving the information regarding the request, pausing a transaction while a user is requesting help from a store clerk, and then the store clerk completing the transaction. These are part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that recite these human activities are instead being performed by the user performing the operations by “a first display unit” displaying images , the store clerk performing operations by “a second display unit” displaying images, and the functions being performed by processing device comprising a processor, merely result in apply it.
Specifically here the claims merely invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Specifically here the additional elements merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer perform the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Further the additional elements that recite these human activities are instead being performed by the user performing the operations by “a first display unit” displaying images , the store clerk performing operations by “a second display unit” displaying images, and the functions being performed by a processor, merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims recite certain human activities of accepting a request to then receive information regarding a request. The additional elements that this is being performed by “processor” and “display unit” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 4, the claims recite certain human activities of a transferring the request from one store clerk to another when one can’t help, is busy for example. These can be performed by a supervisor. Therefore part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that this is being performed by “processor”, “display unit”, and sent to “another device”, merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 5, the claim merely describe a specific type of processing device of claim 1. These additional elements of the human activities are instead performed by a processing device that includes “an automatic change machine” and “ a cashless settlement terminal” result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 6, the claims recite certain human activities of a user to communicate with a store clerk serving their request. The additional elements that allow this human activity to instead be performed by a “microphone”, “processor”, and “speaker” merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 7, the claims recite certain human activities of a user requesting help (providing input), providing the request to a store clerk, the store clerk receiving the information regarding the request, pausing a transaction while a user is requesting help from a store clerk, allowing a user to accept a request and then see or hear information about the request, transferring the request to another store clerk when one can’t or will not perform the help, and then the other store clerk see the help request and completing the transaction. These are part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that recite these human activities are instead being performed by the user performing the operations by “a first display unit” displaying images , the store clerks performing operations by “a second display unit” displaying images and “by a third display unit” displaying images, the functions being performed by processing system comprising processing devices where one includes a processor, merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 8, the claims recite certain human activities of accepting a request to then receive information regarding a request. For example a supervisor saying hey employee B are you free. Employee B saying yes, and the supervisor saying great, help me with the following. The additional elements that this is being performed by “processor” and “display unit” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 7.
As per claim 9, the claims recite certain human activities of providing the request information to additional store clerks. The additional elements that this is being performed by “display unit” displaying images merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 7.
As per claim 10, the claims recite certain human activities of pausing a transaction while requesting help. Then allowing a store clerk to perform the transaction or complete the help request and provide that information the user. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that this is being performed by “processor” and “display unit” displaying images merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 7.
As per claim 11, the claims recite certain human activities of providing help to someone in another lane. This can happen by a user talking loudly or shouting across lanes with help information. The additional elements that this is performed by “processing devices” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 7.
As per claim 12, the claims recite certain human activities of providing help to someone in another lane. This can happen by a user talking loudly or shouting across lanes with help information. The additional elements that this is performed by “processing devices” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 7.
As per claim 13, the claim merely describe a specific type of first processing device of claim 7. These additional elements that the certain human activities are performed by a processing device including “an automatic change machine” and “ a cashless settlement terminal” result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 7.
As per claim 14, the claim recites certain human activities of a user to communicate with a store clerk serving their request. The additional elements that allow this human activity to instead be performed by a “microphone”, “speaker”, and “processor” merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 7.
As per claim 15, the claims recite certain human activities of a user requesting help (providing input), providing the request to a store clerk, the store clerk receiving the information regarding the request, pausing a transaction while a user is requesting help from a store clerk, and then the store clerk completing the transaction. These are part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that recite these human activities are instead being performed by the user performing the operations by “a first display unit” displaying images, and the store clerk performing operations by “a second display unit” displaying images, merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 16, the claims recite certain human activities of accepting a request to then receive information regarding a request. The additional elements that this is being performed by “display unit” displaying images merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 15.
As per claim 17, the claims recite certain human activities of transferring the request from one store clerk to another when one can’t help, is busy for example. These can be performed by a supervisor. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that this is being performed by “display unit” and sent to another “device” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 15.
As per claim 19, the claims recite certain human activities of transferring the request from one store clerk to another when one can’t help, is busy for example. These can be performed by a supervisor. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that this is being performed by “display unit” and sent to another “device” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 15.
As per claim 20, the claims recite certain human activities of providing help to someone in another lane. This can happen by a user talking loudly or shouting across lanes with help information. The additional elements that this is performed by “processing devices” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 15.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), under the practical application step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Leggo et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2017/0185984).
As per claim 1, Leggo et al. teaches A transaction processing device, comprising: (see paragraphs 0024-0025, Examiner’s note: checkout system where users can purchase items).
a first display unit configured to display a first image for accepting an input operation by a customer; (see paragraph 0048 and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: alert is input by a customer or a button at a POS terminal and teaches in Figure 10 various “customer station” status messages).
a second display unit configured to display a second image for accepting an input operation by a store clerk; (see paragraphs 0049, 0057, 0061, and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: shows messages and various user inputs a user can perform).
and a processor configured to: (see paragraphs 0031-0033, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform the functions of the computing system).
Receive an assistance request input via the first display unit, the assistance request indicating the customer operating the first display unit requests store clerk assistance, and after an acceptance operation in response to the receive assistance request, pause acceptance of input operations via the first display unit (see paragraph 0024, 0046, and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: shows needing customer service help before computing a transaction (shows Customer station message and type of alert message like blocking)(see Figure 10). Further paragraph 0024 and 0046 teaches needing to verify information before completing a transaction and messages stopping a transaction.).
Mirror content of the first image on the first display unit to the second display unit as the second image (see paragraphs 0037, 0041, and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: teaches a controller can communicate a request or status inquire to each supervisor terminal, POS terminal and a wearable devices (see paragraph 0037), further teaches information about a transaction is provided to a supervisor (see paragraph 0041 and Figure 10). It is noted the plain meaning of mirror includes resemble, here the content on the supervisor screen resembles that of the POS as it relates to the same content (See Figure 10). Further alternatively paragraph 0037 specifically teaches providing the request or status identifier to each of the supervisor terminal, POS terminal and a wearable devices which would also read on the amended “mirror”).
and accept input operations via the second display unit displaying the second image, then cause the first image being displayed by the first display unit to indicate the input operations being performed by the store clerk via the second display unit displaying the second image (see paragraph 0049, 0062, and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: teaches resolving issues or alerts and providing them to the POS (see paragraphs 0049 and 0062). Further figure 10 shows information displayed at the customer station (e.g. POS) like your order has been cancelled, etc.).
As per claim 2, Leggo et al. teaches
Wherein the processor is further configured to cause the second display unit to display the mirrored content of the first image as the second image only after the acceptance operation is input in response to received assistance request (see paragraphs 0054-0055 and corresponding Figures 5-6, Examiner’s note: here acceptance is a broad term, a user could accept the notification or request merely by clicking on it to be provided additional information, which is shown here in reference character 625).
As per claim 15, Leggo teaches A transaction processing method, comprising: (see paragraph 0009, Examiner’s note: method of a POS terminal).
causing a first display unit of a transaction processing device to display a first image for accepting an input operation by a customer; (see paragraph 0048 and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: alert entered is input by a customer or a button at a POS terminal and teaches in Figure 10 various “customer station” status messages).
causing a second display unit of the transaction processing device to display a second image for accepting an input operation by a store clerk (see paragraphs 0049, 0057, 0061, and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: shows messages and various user inputs a user can perform).
Receiving an assistance request via the first display unit, the assistance request indicating that the customer operating the first display unit requests store clerk assistance; and after an acceptance operation in response to the received assistance request pausing acceptance of input operations via the first display unit (see paragraph 0024, 0046, and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: shows needing customer service help before computing a transaction (shows Customer station message and type of alert message like blocking)(see Figure 10). Further paragraph 0024 and 0046 teaches needing to verify information before completing a transaction and messages stopping a transaction.).
Mirroring content of the first image on the first display unit to the second display unit as the second image (see paragraphs 0037, 0041, and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: teaches a controller can communicate a request or status inquire to each supervisor terminal, POS terminal and a wearable devices (see paragraph 0037), further teaches information about a transaction is provided to a supervisor (see paragraph 0041 and Figure 10). It is noted the plain meaning of mirror includes resemble, here the content on the supervisor screen resembles that of the POS as it relates to the same content (See Figure 10). Further alternatively paragraph 0037 specifically teaches providing the request or status identifier to each of the supervisor terminal, POS terminal and a wearable devices which would also read on the amended “mirror”).
And accepting input operations via the second display unit displaying the second image, then causing the first image being displayed by the first display unit to indicate the input operations being performed by the store clerk via the second display unit displaying the second image. (see paragraph 0049, 0062, and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: teaches resolving issues or alerts and providing them to the POS (see paragraphs 0049 and 0062). Further figure 10 shows information displayed at the customer station (e.g. POS) like your order has been cancelled, etc.).
As per claim 16, Leggo teaches
Wherein the second display unit is caused to display the second image only after the acceptance operation is input in response to received assistance request (see paragraphs 0054-0055 and corresponding Figures 5-6, Examiner’s note: here acceptance is a broad term, a user could accept the notification or request merely by clicking on it to be provided additional information, which is shown here in reference character 625).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7-13, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leggo et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2017/0185984) further in view of Uranaka (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0394628).
As per claim 4, Leggo et al. does not expressly teach wherein the processor is further configured to receive a non-acceptance input operation performed by the store clerk via the second display unit and then transfer the received assistance request to another device in response to the non-acceptance input operation.
However, Uranaka which is in the art of a clerk calling system (See abstract) teaches wherein the processor is further configured to receive a non-acceptance input operation performed by the store clerk via the second display unit and then transfer the received assistance request to another device in response to the non-acceptance input operation (see paragraphs 0072, 0078, and 0084-0085, Examiner’s note: teaches reselecting another clerk if the user selects NG, where clerks may be selected based on distance to the customer as the clerks may be using portable mobile devices).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leggo et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Uranaka with the motivation of providing the common practice to allow another customer service clerk to provide help when one is busy or unavailable in order to better assist the customer in the fastest way possible (see Uranaka paragraph 0088), when multiple supervisory stations which include wearable devices servicing numerous requests is known (see Leggo et al. paragraphs 0006, 0053, and Figures 1 and 10)
As per claim 5, Leggo et al. teaches
further comprising: an automatic change machine; (see paragraph 0042-0043, Examiner’s note: change low alert message relates to a POS terminal being low on money that would be provided in response to a cash payment or request for cash back from a purchase).
Leggo et al. does not expressly teach and a cashless settlement terminal.
However, Uranaka which is in the art of a clerk calling system (See abstract) teaches a self check including and a cashless settlement terminal (see paragraphs 0027-0028 and 0038, Examiner’s note: teaches a credit card reader).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leggo et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Uranaka with the motivation of providing a known way to provide credit card transactions at Point of sale terminals for convenience when a user isn’t carrying cash (see Uranaka paragraphs 0027-0028 and 0038), when Leggo et al. teaches in the background art that POS machines with credit card payments are known (see Leggo et al. paragraph 0002).
As per claim 7, Leggo et al. teaches A transaction processing system, comprising: (see paragraphs 0024-00255, Examiner’s note: checkout system where users can purchase items).
a first transaction processing device; and a second transaction processing device, wherein the first transaction device includes: a first display unit configured to display a first image for accepting an input operation by a customer; (see paragraph 0048 and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: alert entered is input by a customer or a button at a POS terminal and teaches in Figure 10 various “customer station” status messages).
a second display unit configured to display a second image for accepting an input operation by a first store clerk; (see paragraphs 0049, 0057, 0061, and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: shows messages and various user inputs a user can perform).
and a processor configured to: (see paragraphs 0031-0033, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform the functions of the computing system).
receive an assistance request input via the first display unit, the assistance request indicating the customer operating the first display unit requests store clerk assistance, after an acceptance operation in response to the received assistance, pause acceptance of input operations via the first display unit (see paragraph 0024, 0046, and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: shows needing customer service help before computing a transaction (shows Customer station message and type of alert message like blocking)(see Figure 10). Further paragraph 0024 and 0046 teaches needing to verify information before completing a transaction and messages stopping a transaction.).
and Mirror content of the first image on the first display unit to the second display unit as the second image (see paragraphs 0037, 0041, and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: teaches a controller can communicate a request or status inquire to each supervisor terminal, POS terminal and a wearable devices (see paragraph 0037), further teaches information about a transaction is provided to a supervisor (see paragraph 0041 and Figure 10). It is noted the plain meaning of mirror includes resemble, here the content on the supervisor screen resembles that of the POS as it relates to the same content (See Figure 10). Further alternatively paragraph 0037 specifically teaches providing the request or status identifier to each of the supervisor terminal, POS terminal and a wearable devices which would also read on the amended “mirror”).
and accept input operations via the second display unit displaying the second image, then cause the first image being displayed by the first display unit to indicate the input operations being performed by the first store clerk via the second display unit displaying the second image, (see paragraph 0049, 0062, and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: teaches resolving issues or alerts and providing them to the POS (see paragraphs 0049 and 0062). Further figure 10 shows information displayed at the customer station (e.g. POS) like your order has been cancelled, etc.).
cause the second display unit to display mirrored content of the first image as the second image only after the acceptance operation is input in response to the received request via the second display unit by the first store clerk, (see paragraphs 0054-0055 and corresponding Figures 5-6, Examiner’s note: here acceptance is a broad term, a user could accept the notification or request merely by clicking on it to be provided additional information, which is shown here in reference character 625).
and the second transaction processing device includes: a third display unit configured to display a third image for accepting an input operation by a second store clerk (see paragraph 0053 and Figure 1, Examiner’s note: teaches multiple wearable devices performing the functions).
Leggo et al. does not expressly teach receive transfer a non-acceptance input operation performed by the first store clerk via the second display unit and then transfer the received assistance request to the second transaction processing device in response to the non-acceptance input operation.
However, Uranaka which is in the art of a clerk calling system (See abstract) teaches receive transfer a non-acceptance input operation performed by the first store clerk via the second display unit and then transfer the received assistance request to the second transaction processing device in response to the non-acceptance input operation (see paragraphs 0072, 0078, and 0084-0085, Examiner’s note: teaches reselecting another clerk if the user selects NG, where clerks may be selected based on distance to the customer as the clerks may be using portable mobile devices).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leggo et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Uranaka with the motivation of providing the common practice to allow another customer service clerk to provide help when one is busy or unavailable in order to better assist the customer in the fastest way possible (see Uranaka paragraph 0088), when multiple supervisory stations with wearable devices servicing numerous requests is known (see Leggo et al. paragraphs 0006, 0053, and Figures 1 and 10)
As per claim 8, Leggo et al. teaches
Wherein the processor is further configured to cause the second display unit to display the mirrored content of the first image as the second image only after the acceptance operation is input in response to received assistance request (see paragraphs 0054-0055 and corresponding Figures 5-6, Examiner’s note: here acceptance is a broad term, a user could accept the notification or request merely by clicking on it to be provided additional information, which is shown here in reference character 625).
As per claim 9, Leggo et al. teaches
Wherein the first image displayed by the first display unit is mirrored by the third display unit as the third image (see paragraph 0053 and Figure 1, Examiner’s note: teaches multiple wearable devices performing the functions).
As per claim 10, Leggo et al. teaches
Wherein the processor is further configured to: pause acceptance of input operations via the first display unit (see paragraph 0024, 0046, and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: shows needing customer service help before computing a transaction (shows Customer station message and type of alert message like blocking)(see Figure 10). Further paragraph 0024 and 0046 teaches needing to verify information before completing a transaction and messages stopping a transaction.).
but accept input operations via the third display unit displaying the third image, then cause the first image being displayed by the first display unit to indicate the input operations being performed by the second store clerk via the third display unit displaying the third image. (see paragraph 0006, 0049, 0053, 0062, and Figures 1 and 10, Examiner’s note: teaches resolving issues or alerts and providing them to the POS (see paragraphs 0049 and 0062). Further figure 10 shows information displayed at the customer station (e.g. POS) like your order has been cancelled, etc. Further teaches in Figure 1 and paragraphs 0006 and 0053 there are multiple supervisors performing the functions of responding to alerts. In Leggo et al. the alert is not removed until an employee clears it. The same function is claimed here in claim 10, that the functions are paused until an employee performs an action with respect to the user request for assistance).
Leggo just doesn’t describe transferring requests for help or more specifically as recited in the claims after the transfer of the received assistance request.
However, Uranaka which is in the art of a clerk calling system (See abstract) teaches transferring requests for help or more specifically as recited in the claims after the transfer of the received assistance request (see paragraphs 0072, 0078, 0084-0085, Examiner’s note: teaches reselecting another clerk if the user selects NG, where clerks may be selected based on distance to the customer as the clerks may be using portable mobile devices).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leggo et al. in view of Uranaka with the aforementioned teachings from Uranaka with the motivation of providing the common practice to allow another customer service clerk to provide help when one is busy or unavailable in order to better assist the customer in the fastest way possible (see Uranaka paragraph 0088), when multiple supervisory stations which wearable devices servicing numerous requests is known (see Leggo et al. paragraphs 0006, 0053, and Figures 1 and 10)
As per claim 11, Leggo teaches
wherein the first transaction processing device and the second transaction processing device are on different checkout lanes (see paragraphs 0006 and 0057-0059, Examiner’s note: here teaches alerts for different lanes like 1 and 85. Further teaches sorting alerts to look at specific lanes. Therefore the clerk is in lane 1 and the device is seeing alerts for lane 85 and 1 they are in different lanes, it is noted that the wearable devices are mobile and not stationary (see paragraph 0006)).
As per claim 12, Leggo teaches
wherein the first transaction processing device and the second transaction processing device are on different checkout lanes. (see paragraphs 0006 and 0057-0059, Examiner’s note: here teaches alerts for different lanes like 1 and 85. Further teaches sorting alerts to look at specific lanes. Therefore the clerk is in lane 1 and the device is seeing alerts for lane 85 and 1 they are in different lanes, it is noted that the wearable devices are mobile and not stationary (see paragraph 0006)).
As per claim 13, Leggo teaches
wherein the first transaction processing device further includes: an automatic change machine; (see paragraph 0042-0043, Examiner’s note: change low alert message relates to a POS terminal being low on money that would be provided in response to a cash payment or request for cash back from a purchase).
Leggo et al. does not expressly teach and a cashless settlement terminal.
However, Uranaka which is in the art of a clerk calling system (See abstract) teaches a self check including and a cashless settlement terminal (see paragraphs 0027-0028 and 0038, Examiner’s note: teaches a credit card reader).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leggo et al. in view of Uranaka with the aforementioned teachings from Uranaka with the motivation of providing a known way to provide credit card transactions at Point of sale terminals for convenience when a user isn’t carrying cash (see Uranaka paragraphs 0027-0028 and 0038), when Leggo et al. teaches in the background art that POS machines with credit card payments are known (see Leggo et al. paragraph 0002).
As per claim 17, Leggo does not expressly teach further comprising: transferring the assistance request to another device based on a non-acceptance operation performed by the store clerk via the second display unit.
However, Uranaka which is in the art of a clerk calling system (See abstract) teaches transferring requests for help or more specifically as recited in the claims further comprising: transferring the assistance request to another device based on a non-acceptance operation performed by the store clerk via the second display unit (see paragraphs 0072, 0078, 0084-0085, Examiner’s note: teaches reselecting another clerk if the user selects NG, where clerks may be selected based on distance to the customer as the clerks may be using portable mobile devices).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leggo et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Uranaka with the motivation of providing the common practice to allow another customer service clerk to provide help when one is busy or unavailable in order to better assist the customer in the fastest way possible (see Uranaka paragraph 0088), when multiple supervisory stations with wearable devices servicing numerous requests is known (see Leggo et al. paragraphs 0006, 0053, and Figures 1 and 10)
As per claim 19, Leggo does not expressly teach further comprising: transferring the assistance request to another device based on a non-acceptance input performed by the store clerk via the second display unit.
However, Uranaka which is in the art of a clerk calling system (See abstract) teaches transferring requests for help or more specifically as recited in the claims further comprising: transferring the assistance requet to another device based on a non-acceptance input performed by the store clerk via the second display unit (see paragraphs 0072, 0078, 0084-0085, Examiner’s note: teaches reselecting another clerk if the user selects NG, where clerks may be selected based on distance to the customer as the clerks may be using portable mobile devices).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leggo et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Uranaka with the motivation of providing the common practice to allow another customer service clerk to provide help when one is busy or unavailable in order to better assist the customer in the fastest way possible (see Uranaka paragraph 0088), when multiple supervisory stations with wearable devices servicing numerous requests is known (see Leggo et al. paragraphs 0006, 0053, and Figures 1 and 10)
As per claim 20, Leggo teaches
wherein the store clerk is another transaction processing device on a different checkout lane. (see paragraphs 0006 and 0057-0059, Examiner’s note: here teaches alerts for different lanes like 1 and 85. Further teaches sorting alerts to look at specific lanes. Therefore the clerk is in lane 1 and the device is seeing alerts for lane 85 and 1 they are in different lanes, it is noted that the wearable devices are mobile and not stationary (see paragraph 0006)).
Leggo does not expressly teach transferring the request to another device more specifically as recited in the claims the other device
However, Uranaka which is in the art of a clerk calling system (See abstract) teaches transferring the request to another device more specifically as recited in the claims the other device (see paragraphs 0072, 0078, 0084-0085, Examiner’s note: teaches reselecting another clerk if the user selects NG, where clerks may be selected based on distance to the customer as the clerks may be using portable mobile devices. So if the only available device is far away they may be in a different like a different area like a different checkout lane, the backroom, etc.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leggo et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Uranaka with the motivation of providing the common practice to allow another customer service clerk to provide help when one is busy or unavailable in order to better assist the customer in the fastest way possible (see Uranaka paragraph 0088), when multiple supervisory stations with wearable devices servicing numerous requests is known (see Leggo et al. paragraphs 0006, 0053, and Figures 1 and 10)
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leggo et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2017/0185984) further in view of Marquez et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0201703).
As per claim 6, Leggo does not expressly teach further comprising: a microphone and a speaker, wherein after the acceptance operation in response to the received assistance request, the microphone and the speaker are controlled by the processor to permit the customer to communicate with the store clerk.
However, Marquez et al. teaches further comprising: a microphone and a speaker, wherein after the acceptance operation in response to the received assistance request, the microphone and the speaker are controlled by the processor to permit the customer to communicate with the store clerk (see paragraphs 0037-0038 and corresponding Figures 7A-7B, Examiner’s note: microphone and speaker provided in relation to a remote view of the display of the user terminal).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leggo with the aforementioned teachings from Marquez et al. with the motivation of a providing a way for an employee to see remotely what is happening at a POS with a user (see Marquez et al. paragraphs 0037-0038 and corresponding Figures 7A-7B), when providing remote support to a user interacting with a POS is known (see Leggo Figure 10).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leggo et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2017/0185984) further in view of Uranaka (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0394628) further in view of Marquez et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0201703).
As per claim 14, Leggo in view of Uranaka does not expressly teach wherein the first transaction processing device further includes: a microphone and a speaker, wherein after the acceptance operation in response to the received assistance request, the microphone and the speaker are controlled by the processor to permit the customer to communicate with the first store clerk.
However, Marquez et al. teaches wherein the first transaction processing device further includes: a microphone and a speaker, wherein after the acceptance operation in response to the received assistance request, the microphone and the speaker are controlled by the processor to permit the customer to communicate with the first store clerk (see paragraphs 0037-0038 and corresponding Figures 7A-7B, Examiner’s note: microphone and speaker provided in relation to a remote view of the display of the user terminal).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leggo in view of Uranaka with the aforementioned teachings from Marquez et al. with the motivation of a providing a way for an employee to see remotely what is happening at a POS with a user (see Marquez et al. paragraphs 0037-0038 and corresponding Figures 7A-7B), when providing remote support to a user interacting with a POS is known (see Leggo Figure 10).
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kloubakov et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2002/0103708) teaches a customer self check out system with help or assistance through supervisor terminals (see abstract and Figures 4-7)
Persky et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2002/0148896) teaches a system for providing a self-check support from a supervisor in different lanes (see abstract and Figures 2, and 5-6)
Vance (United States Patent Number: US 7,866,546) teaches a retail POS with assistance help (see Figures 16A-16F)
Ogawa et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0035070) teaches a POS transaction terminal with clerk assistance help (see Figures 6-8)
Merriam-Webster Mirror teaches the definition of mirror includes resemble (see page 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights