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
Claims 1-16 filed March 27, 2025 are pending and are hereby examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-8 are directed to a system, and claims 9-16 are directed to a method, all of which are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1 and 9 recite an abstract idea of a cash handling system for performing cash handling with a service fee charged to the customer.
The independent claims 1 and 9 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
… that displays a… for selecting an advertisement from among a plurality of types of advertisements;
… that accepts a selection operation performed by the customer on the…;
… that reduces the service fee for the cash handling according to an advertisement selected based on the selection operation.
7. 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, a cash handling system for a customer with a service fee charged to the customer 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.
8. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites a cash handling system for a customer with a service fee charged to the customer with generally recited computer elements such as a display, selection screen, operation unit, and control circuitry, 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 a cash handling system for a customer with a service fee charged to the customer. 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.
9. 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 a display, selection screen, operation unit, and control circuitry to 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.
10. Regarding dependent claims 2 and 10, although these claims recite a generally recited display, selection screen, and control circuitry, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of a cash handling system for a customer with a service fee charged to the customer, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
11. Regarding dependent claims 3 and 11, although these claims recite a generally recited display and selection screen, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of a cash handling system for a customer with a service fee charged to the customer, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 15, although these claims recite a generally recited control circuitry, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of a cash handling system for a customer with a service fee charged to the customer, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
13. Regarding dependent claims 5 and 13, although these claims recite a generally recited selection screen, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of a cash handling system for a customer with a service fee charged to the customer, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
14. Regarding dependent claims 5 and 13, although these claims recite a generally recited control circuitry and selection screen, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of a cash handling system for a customer with a service fee charged to the customer, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
20. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotanda (US 2005/0078177) in view of Iwahashi (US 2004/0167818).
21. Re Claims 1, 9: Gotanda discloses comprising:
a display that displays a selection screen for selecting an advertisement from among a plurality of types of advertisements (see [0068, 0075] display advertisements);
an operation unit that accepts a selection operation performed by the customer on the selection screen (see [0050] Fig. 12 selecting display screen).
However, Gotanda fails to explicitly disclose the following. Meanwhile, Iwahashi teaches:
a control circuitry that reduces the service fee for the cash handling according to an advertisement selected based on the selection operation (see [0063, 0068] reducing prices of goods).
From the teaching of Iwahashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gotanda’s advertisement display system with Iwahashi’s teaching of reducing a service fee in order for “… providing advertisements by an automatic transaction apparatus… (see Iwahashi [0001]).”
22. Re Claims 2, 10: Gotanda discloses wherein the advertisements that the display displays on the selection screen include advertisements having different playback periods, and the control circuitry reduces, from the service fee, a monetary amount according to the playback period of the advertisement selected on the selection screen (see [0092] advertisement fee paid).
23. Re Claims 3, 11: Gotanda discloses wherein the advertisements that the display displays on the selection screen include advertisements of different companies (see [0091] plurality of advertisers).
24. Re Claims 4, 12: However, Gotanda fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Iwahashi teaches wherein the control circuitry reduces the service fee by issuing a coupon usable for payment for an item price equivalent to reduction of the service fee (see [0063, 0068] reducing prices of goods). From the teaching of Iwahashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gotanda’s advertisement display system with Iwahashi’s teaching of reducing a service fee in order for “… providing advertisements by an automatic transaction apparatus… (see Iwahashi [0001]).”
25. Re Claims 5, 13: However, Gotanda fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Iwahashi teaches wherein the coupon is a coupon usable for purchase of an item of a company selected on the selection screen (see [0063, 0068] reducing prices of goods). From the teaching of Iwahashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gotanda’s advertisement display system with Iwahashi’s teaching of reducing a service fee in order for “… providing advertisements by an automatic transaction apparatus… (see Iwahashi [0001]).”
26. Re Claims 6, 14: However, Gotanda fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Iwahashi teaches wherein the control circuitry determines whether or not the customer is viewing an advertisement being played, and changes an amount of reduction in the service fee, based on a result of determination (see [0063, 0068] reducing prices of goods). From the teaching of Iwahashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gotanda’s advertisement display system with Iwahashi’s teaching of reducing a service fee in order for “… providing advertisements by an automatic transaction apparatus… (see Iwahashi [0001]).”
27. Re Claims 7, 15: Gotanda discloses wherein the control circuitry stops playback of the advertisement upon determining that the customer is not viewing the advertisement being played (see [0084] receives input from customer by position signal detecting means).
28. Re Claims 8, 16: Gotanda discloses wherein the control circuitry changes the types of advertisements to be displayed on the selection screen, based on information on an attribute of the customer who views the advertisements (see [0004-0005] based on attribute of customer).
Examiner Notes
29. The Examiner suggests incorporating claims 3 (dependent on 2), 5 (dependent on 4), and 7 (dependent on 6) together into the independent claims. The Examiner suggests clearly defining what the rules are.
30. 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.
Conclusion
31. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hristova et al (Ad-me: wireless advertising adapted to the user location, device and emotions, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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
Prosecution Insights