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
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 2/10/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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.
Claim 1 is directed towards a system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations) /fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: hold camera management information indicating the number of shop clerks included in a photographable area of each of the one or more cameras / receive a shop login request /calculate, for each of the one or more cameras , an index value based on a degree of congestion of customers and on the number of shop clerks included in the photographable area, the degree of congestion being based on the number of physically visiting customers who are included in the photographable area and the number of user terminals that are coupled at present / select, based on the index value, one of the one or more cameras that is to be coupled to the first user terminal / communication is executed between the first user terminal and the selected one of the one or more cameras / receiving position information detecting positions of shop clerks and physically visiting customers within each of the plurality of shops/ update the camera management information based on the received position information to determine which shop clerks and physically visiting customers are within the photographable area of each of the one or more cameras. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “The remote customer service program causes the computer to execute processing of identifying sales clerks who handle the commercial product and who are associated with the region”, “Accordingly, in at least one aspect of this invention, remote customer service to attend to a user is promptly started. Thus, the at least one aspect of this invention accomplishes remote customer service that lessens troubles of customers and reduces losses of chances of sales.” , “In this embodiment, each of the plurality of shops is further stocked with one or more commercial items. The shop clerks staffing each shop provide face-to-face customer service to physically visiting customers who visit the shop, and also provide remote customer service with use of the remote customer service system to users who are in remote places.”, “FIG. 10A, FIG. lOB, and FIG. lOC are each a table for showing a data configuration example of the commercial item type management table 323. FIG. 10A is an illustration of the commercial item type management table 323 of the shop X (that is, the commercial item type management table 323 held by the shop server 3 that is installed at the shop X), FIG. lOB is an illustration of the commercial item type management table 323 of the shop Y (that is, the commercial item type management table 323 held by the shop server 3 that is installed at the shop Y), and FIG. 10C is an illustration of the commercial item type management table 323 of the shop Z (that is, the commercial item type management table 323 held by the shop server 3 that is installed at the shop Z).”. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mathematical concept – i.e. mathematical calculations/relationships, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: calculate, for each of the one or more cameras , an index value based on a degree of congestion of customers and on the number of shop clerks included in the photographable area, the degree of congestion being based on the number of physically visiting customers who are included in the photographable area and the number of user terminals that are coupled at present. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind of using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: calculate, for each of the one or more cameras , an index value based on a degree of congestion of customers and on the number of shop clerks included in the photographable area, the degree of congestion being based on the number of physically visiting customers who are included in the photographable area and the number of user terminals that are coupled at present / select, based on the index value, one of the one or more cameras that is to be coupled to the first user terminal. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements - see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a server/ camera (s) that are placed in each of a plurality of shops and that are couplable to user terminals / user terminals that are respectively coupled to the one or more cameras / a first user terminal / executing remote communication between devices/ sensors. The server/ camera/ terminals/first user terminal/ sensors represent generic computing elements. Performing remote communication between devices does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Performing remote communication between devices does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9, 10 are directed to a device and method, respectively, for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1; the claims recite the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claims 9, 10 perform the method of claim 1 using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 9, 10 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-8 , 11-20 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of claim 1 . The claims further recite the additional element of an input device, which represents a generic computing element that is recited at a high level of generality. The additional element of tracking real-time movement data (claim 11) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant prior art: Kohata (20230113045) describes acquiring pieces of image data captured by cameras (2). A position of a person included in each of the pieces of the image data is specified by an index that is different for each camera. The position of the person specified by the index by another index common to the cameras is specified. Determination is made to check whether the person is the same person on the basis of the specified position that uses the latter index. Learning data obtained by assigning a correct answer label is generated as learning data used for machine learning of a machine learning model. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
Miyata (20230015683 ) describes detecting moving objects based on a captured image comprising: cameras capturing images to generate image data; image recognition circuitries each performing image recognition on the image data generated by each camera to detect a moving object in a captured image indicated by the image data; and an information management apparatus managing image data supplied from each camera to a corresponding image recognition circuitry. The information management apparatus includes a communication interface performing data communication with the cameras and the image recognition circuitries, and a controller managing congestion information on the number of moving objects localized within a range of a captured image indicated by image data for each camera, and controlling the communication interface to supply the image data generated by the cameras to each image recognition circuitry, distributing the image data according to the congestion information. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-20. When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Amended claim 1 now recites that the server is configured to "receive position
information from sensors detecting positions of shop clerks and physically visiting customers within each of the plurality of shops" and "update the camera management information based on the received position information to determine which shop clerks and physically visiting customers are within the photographable area of each of the one or more cameras." These amendments add specific technical elements that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The claims now require physical sensors that detect real-world positions of
people within shops, and the server must process this sensor data to dynamically update camera management information. The claimed system accomplishes remote customer service that lessens troubles of customers and reduces losses of chances of sales by providing a technical solution that coordinates physical sensor data with camera selection for remote communication. As-Filed
Specification, paragraph [0005]. The sensor-based position detection and dynamic updating of camera management information cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. These limitations require specific hardware interacting with the physical environment to track real-time movements of people within retail spaces. The claims provide a specific technical
improvement to remote customer service systems by automatically correlating physical sensor data with camera photographable areas to optimize camera selection. This is not merely applying an abstract idea using generic computer components, but rather a specific technical implementation that improves the functioning of the remote customer service system itself. Even if the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea, the combination of elements in amended claim 1 provides significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The ordered combination of receiving position information from sensors detecting positions of shop clerks and physically visiting customers, updating camera management information based on the received position information to determine which persons are within each camera's photographable area, calculating an index value based on congestion and shop clerk numbers, and selecting a camera for remote communication based on the index value represents a specific, unconventional arrangement of elements that provides an inventive concept. This combination is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The Office has not provided evidence that the
specific combination of sensor-based position detection, dynamic camera management
information updating, congestion-based index calculation, and camera selection for remote
customer service was previously known or conventional. Indeed, the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they recite a specific technical improvement to remote customer service systems by automatically selecting cameras based on real-time shop conditions (shop clerk positions, customer congestion, and photographable areas) to enable prompt remote communication between users and shop clerks. This is not merely organizing human activity but rather provides a concrete technical solution for optimizing camera-to-user coupling in a multi-shop, multi-camera environment. That is, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the index value calculation based on photographable areas of cameras, physically visiting customers within those areas, and coupled user terminals represents a specific technical implementation tied to the physical camera infrastructure rather than a mental process or mathematical concept performable in the human mind. The claims require real-time monitoring of camera photographable areas and dynamic coupling between user terminals and cameras, which cannot practically be performed mentally. Dependent claims 2-8 and new claims 11-20 depend from amended claim 1 and are therefore patent eligible for at least the same reasons as claim 1. Additionally, new claim 11 further specifies that the sensors comprise position detection sensors placed within the plurality of shops and that the server is configured to continuously receive the position information from the position detection sensors to track real-time movements of the shop clerks and the physically
visiting customers, adding further technical specificity to the sensor-based tracking system. New claim 20 recites that the server is configured to automatically recalculate the index value for each of the one or more cameras in response to detecting a change in the position information received from the sensors and switch the first user terminal from a currently coupled camera to a different camera when the recalculated index value indicates a lower degree of congestion at the different camera. This automatic, sensor-triggered recalculation and camera switching represents a specific technical implementation that cannot be performed mentally. Independent claims 9 and 10 have been amended to include the same sensor-based position detection and camera management information updating limitations as claim 1. Accordingly, claims 9 and 10 are patent eligible for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-20 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and requests withdrawal of the rejection.
Claims 11-20 each depend, either directly or indirectly, from independent claim 1. They
are believed to be patentably distinguished for at least the same reasons as expressed above in relation to the independent claim from which each depends, as well as for the additional elements recited therein and in any intervening claim. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that claims 11-20 be passed to allowance.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm , and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “The remote customer service program causes the computer to execute processing of identifying sales clerks who handle the commercial product and who are associated with the region”, “Accordingly, in at least one aspect of this invention, remote customer service to attend to a user is promptly started. Thus, the at least one aspect of this invention accomplishes remote customer service that lessens troubles of customers and reduces losses of chances of sales.” , “In this embodiment, each of the plurality of shops is further stocked with one or more commercial items. The shop clerks staffing each shop provide face-to-face customer service to physically visiting customers who visit the shop, and also provide remote customer service with use of the remote customer service system to users who are in remote places.”, “FIG. 10A, FIG. lOB, and FIG. lOC are each a table for showing a data configuration example of the commercial item type management table 323. FIG. 10A is an illustration of the commercial item type management table 323 of the shop X (that is, the commercial item type management table 323 held by the shop server 3 that is installed at the shop X), FIG. lOB is an illustration of the commercial item type management table 323 of the shop Y (that is, the commercial item type management table 323 held by the shop server 3 that is installed at the shop Y), and FIG. 10C is an illustration of the commercial item type management table 323 of the shop Z (that is, the commercial item type management table 323 held by the shop server 3 that is installed at the shop Z).”. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec., including the paras noted by the Applicant, that the pending claims, when implemented, improve the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. Providing a remote customer service process that services customers represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice as well as seeking to lessen troubles of customers and to reduce losses of chances of sales pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Conclusion
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).
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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
2/17/2026