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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 17, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3, 5-17, and 19 have been amended.
Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending.
Application filed December 3, 2021 and is a Divisional of Application 16/696922 filed November 26, 2019.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to Claims 1, 3, 5-17, and 19 are acknowledged. Amendments to Claims 1, 12, and 19 are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 103 rejection of Claims 1-3 and 5-20.
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 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 19-21 are processes and Claims 12-18 are machines. Accordingly, step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A
Claim 12 (and similarly Claims 1 and 19) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include abstract idea. Any additional elements will be analyzed under Step 2A-Prong 2 and Step 2B:
receiving a transaction identifier for a transaction flagged for a rescan and an audit check (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
obtaining transaction features for the transaction and items of the transaction (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
identifying a number from a total number of transaction items that are to be processed with the partial rescan using the transaction identifier (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries.” 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.);
determining, based on the transaction features, item categories associated with a subset of times selected from the items to perform the rescan on for the audit check by utilizing a machine-learning algorithm trained on the transaction features, including at least particular items known to be stolen based at least in part on a respectively probability of theft assigned to each item category (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) mathematical concepts, using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812, 813 (CCPA 1979), and July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47 Claim 2 analysis wherein trained machine leaning algorithms are mathematical concepts, and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47 Claim 2 analysis wherein using a trained ANN encompasses mental observations or evaluations, e.g., a computer programmer’s mental identification of an anomaly in a data set);
assigning an item category percentage of each item category based on a corresponding probability of theft assigned (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
determining an item rescan total from a total number of the items based on the transaction features (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) mathematical concepts, calculating a number representing an alarm limit value using the mathematical formula ‘‘B1=B0 (1.0–F) + PVL(F)’’, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978));
providing an indication of the subset of items, corresponding item category percentages, and the item rescan total to an attendant terminal to process the rescan and the audit check against the items of the transaction (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); and
instructing the attendant to perform a full rescan of the items for the transaction when any particular transaction item rescanned was unaccounted for in the items scanned for the transaction (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claim 12 (and similarly Claims 1 and 19) is directed to a series of steps for determining and providing the commercial interaction of a determined number of items and item categories for a partial rescan to an attendant terminal, that uses past observed transaction data to train and implement mathematical algorithms to determine items for a rescan, and thus grouped as mathematical concepts and mental processes. The mere nominal recitation of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions, and an attendant terminal does not take the claim out of the, mathematical concept and mental processes. Thus, Claim 1 (and similarly Claims12 and 19) recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
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)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The identified abstract idea of exemplary Claim 12 (and similarly Claims 1 and 19) is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are: a server comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions, and an attendant terminal that merely implements the underlying abstract idea. These additional elements are broadly recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 12 (and similarly Claims 1 and 19) is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 12 (and similarly Claims 1 and 19) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, utilizing a machine learning algorithm to determine item categories and a total number of items for a partial rescan and providing the number and item categories to an attendant terminal, do not add significantly more to the exception because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 12 (and similarly Claims 1 and 19) is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts and mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 3 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 5 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 6 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 7 recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 9 recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 10 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 11 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 13 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 14 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 15 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 16 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 17 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 18 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 20 recites the additional limitation wherein the attendant device is a transaction terminal, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a phone, or a wearable processing device, the examiner refers to the "apply it" rationale of MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 21 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Prior Art
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 in the instant application are allowable over the prior art because the prior arts of record fail to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Exemplary claim 1 recites the following:
A method, comprising:
obtaining a transaction identifier for a transaction designated for a partial rescan;
identifying a set of transaction items associated with the transaction using the transaction identifier;
determining item categories corresponding to the set of transaction items;
utilizing a first machine-learning algorithm trained on at least items known to be stolen based on transaction logs for previous transactions to identify based at least in part on a respective probability of a theft assigned to each item category a subset of items to rescan;
providing an indication of the subset of items to an attendant terminal to process the partial rescan;
determining, based on results of processing the partial rescan that at least one item of the subset of items was not scanned in connection with the transaction; and
instructing the attendant terminal to perform a full rescan of all basket items. (Emphasis added to highlight features that distinguish over the prior art).
As further explained below, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
US Pat Pub 2003/0102373 "Swartz" discloses a statistical basis for use in a self-scanning checkout system determines how many items to check in a shopper's shopping cart for incorrect or missing scans as well as which particular or types of items to check to determine if they were properly scanned, if the shopper is determined to be audited. However, Swartz fails to disclose utilizing a machine-learning algorithm to identify a subset of items to rescan based on a respective probability of a theft assigned to each item category.
US Pat Pub 2019/0188579 "Manoharan" teaches using machine learning to automatically determine a data loading configuration for a computer-based rule engine. Statistical data such as use rates and loading times associated with the various data types may be supplied to a machine learning module to determine a particular loading configuration for the various data types. The computer-based rule engine then loads data according to the data loading configuration when evaluating a subsequent transaction request. Manoharan fails to teach utilizing a machine-learning algorithm to identify a subset of items to rescan based on a respective probability of a theft assigned to each item category.
US Pat Pub 2019/0287113 "Wright" teaches score-based verification of basket contents. A user trust score is generated based on the user's transaction history, item selection area data, and trust rules. If the per-basket verification score is below the threshold value, the basket of items is selected for a partial verification of the contents of the basket. Wright fails to teach t utilizing a machine-learning algorithm to identify a subset of items to rescan based on a respective probability of a theft assigned to each item category.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claims address the technology problem of how transaction security technology operates by addressing technological challenges of computational efficiency where random selection wastes processing cycles on low-risk items while missing high risk items; system precision where random approaches have inherently low precision in identifying theft patterns; resource allocation where systems must balance security effectiveness against operational overhead; and real-time processing where systems must make security determinations.
While the applicant may make the assertion that the claims show an improvement to transaction security technology, there is no support in the claims for technological improvement. Instead the claims are directed to a series of steps for determining what items should be rescanned by an attendant, and sending notifications to an attendant with instructions to follow. While this might increase efficiency for the human attendant, human efficiency is not a technological improvement, and is considered an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to Example 47, Claim 3 because the Applicant’s claims train ML on theft transaction logs, identify subset of items to rescan based on theft probability, determine items not scanned in connection with transaction, and take real-time remedial action by instructing full rescan.
Analyzing data and sending an instruction for a full rescan to an attendant are not the same as detecting anomalies in network packets, determining anomalies are malicious, and taking remedial action by dropping packets and blocking traffic. The dropping packets and blocking traffic are integrally connected to the functioning of computing components, and are therefore tied to the technological environment. This is very different than sending instructions to a human attendant. Sending instructions to a human is an example of organizing human activity, and the analysis of data is classified as a mental process.
Applicant argues that no human attendant could mentally analyze thousands of historical theft patterns, calculate category-specific probabilities, and generate optimized rescan strategies in real-time during transaction processing.
MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) teaches that Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential) are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality.
Applicant argues that the Applicant’s claims are distinguished from Example 47, Claim 2 because the Applicant’s claims do NOT broadly recite training algorithms at high level.
Using specific types of information to train a machine learning algorithm to determine a specific output is not considered to be details that would improve the technical aspects of the machine learning. Example 47, Claim 2 actually provides more technical information about the training of machine learning by stating that it includes a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm. Teaching specific types of algorithms to be applied to the training data is not considered an improvement to the technical aspects of the claims. An intended purpose of the machine learning provides no additional technical improvements. As such, the claims are found to be analogous to Example 47, Claim 2.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific application where ML is trained on theft transaction logs, generates ranked category probabilities, determines precise percentages, and triggers real-time software alerts, and that this amounts to a specific integration of ML analysis into transaction security systems with measurable technological improvements.
According to Example 47, Claim 2, machine learning is itself an abstract idea. The only other additional elements recited in the independent claims are generically recited servers comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions, and an attendant terminal. None of these additional elements perform any actions beyond those of a generically recited computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) – A Claim that requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.
Applicant argues the improvement is to HOW the technology operates, not to business profitability. Applicant IS claiming “a transaction security system that technically performs better through data-driven category analysis” which is a technological improvement.
Since the steps of the claims fail to incorporate non generic computer structure into the execution of the steps, it is unclear how the claims could be improving how the technology operates. The attendant terminal is merely receiving instructions. If those instructions cause the attendant terminal to perform actions, such as scanning, those actions are not claimed. The mere sending/receiving of an instruction is not found to be a technical improvement. Instead it is an automation of a manual task.
Applicant argues that the claims improve the systems analytical capabilities.
Analytical capabilities are considered to be an abstract idea. The applicant tries to make comparisons to multiple cases for eligibility despite human involvement. The key differences between those cases and this one, is that those cases claim enhancements to computer functionality. The courts emphasized that the claims in question didn’t merely center on a desired outcome, but detailed specific steps leading to that outcome. The Applicant’s claims fail to integrate specific steps with technological requirements beyond the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the improvement is to the security system technology, which happens to interface with human attendants for physical execution.
Applicant uses the example that GPS navigation system improves mapping technology even though humans drive the car. The improvement is to the navigation system’s technical capability, not to “making drivers more efficient.” This is a good example of exactly why this claim is ineligible. Merely claiming a GPS navigation system that provides mapping information to a device would also be considered ineligible. Providing the mapping information is merely an automation of a manual process, such as reading a map. Claims that include details about how the GPS acquires location and mapping information, and processing that information to create a dynamic map could be eligible. The key difference is claiming the “nuts and bolts” of the system, versus claiming the desired outcome. The desired outcome is not considered eligible, and the current claims are directed to the desired outcome rather than the details of how the machine works to make the outcome happen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REVA R MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-7942. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:00-6:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/REVA R MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627