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 .
Priority
Applicant claims 371 international priority to PCT/JP2021/021246 filed 6/3/2021 which claims foreign priority to JP 2020-110746, filed 6/26/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs submitted on 12/21/2022 and 7/8/2025 were previously considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 10/27/2025, have been entered. Claims 1-9 and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-5 were previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/25/2025. Claims 1-11 are currently pending in this application and claims 6-11 have been examined.
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 6-11 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) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the device, as claimed in claims 6-11, are directed to a machine (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 8, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
measure weight data of a measurement target object;
store remaining amount data of the measurement target object, the remaining amount data indicating a weight of the measurement target object measured after the measurement target object is used or after the measurement target object is refilled; and
a detector configured to detect an operation on the measurement target object;
a calculator configured to determine, in response to the operation detected, whether a value of the weight data is less than a value of the remaining amount data, reduce the value of the remaining amount data stored to be equal to the value of the weight data in response to determining the value of the weight data is less than the value of the remaining amount data, and to maintain the value of the remaining amount data stored in response to determining the value of the weight data is more than the value of the remaining amount data; and
an orderer configured to execute processing related to ordering of the measurement target object based on the value of the remaining amount data in response to the calculator determining the value of the weight data is less than the value of the remaining amount data, and to suppress the processing related to ordering of the measurement target object in response to the calculator determining the value of the weight data is more than the value of the remaining amount data.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 8 are certain methods of organizing human activity because ordering a target object based on a measured weight of a target object is a commercial or legal interaction because it is an advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations.
Independent claim 6 recites the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 8. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 6 and 8 as described above for independent claim 8.
Thus, claims 6 and 8 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, representative claim 6 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A weight measuring device comprising:
a weight sensor configured to measure weight data of a measurement target object;
a storage configured to store remaining amount data of the measurement target object, the remaining amount data indicating a weight of the measurement target object measured after the measurement target object is used or after the measurement target object is refilled;
a processor configured to function as:
a calculator configured to determine whether a value of the weight data is less than a value of the remaining amount data, reduce the value of the remaining amount data stored in the storage to be equal to the value of the weight data in response to determining the value of the weight data is less than the value of the remaining amount data, and to maintain the value of the remaining amount data stored in the storage in response to determining the value of the weight data is more than the value of the remaining amount data; and
an orderer configured to execute processing related to ordering of the measurement target object based on the value of the remaining amount data in response to the calculator determining the value of the weight data is less than the value of the remaining amount data, and to suppress the processing related to ordering of the measurement target object in response to the calculator determining the value of the weight data is more than the value of the remaining amount data.
In this case, representative claim 8 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A weight measuring device comprising:
a weight sensor configured to measure weight data of a measurement target object;
a storage configured to store remaining amount data of the measurement target object, the remaining amount data indicating a weight of the measurement target object measured after the measurement target object is used or after the measurement target object is refilled; and
a processor configured to function as:
a detector configured to detect an operation on the measurement target object;
a calculator configured to determine, in response to the operation detected, whether a value of the weight data is less than a value of the remaining amount data, reduce the value of the remaining amount data stored in the storage to be equal to the value of the weight data in response to determining the value of the weight data is less than the value of the remaining amount data, and to maintain the value of the remaining amount data stored in the storage in response to determining the value of the weight data is more than the value of the remaining amount data; and
an orderer configured to execute processing related to ordering of the measurement target object based on the value of the remaining amount data in response to the calculator determining the value of the weight data is less than the value of the remaining amount data, and to suppress the processing related to ordering of the measurement target object in response to the calculator determining the value of the weight data is more than the value of the remaining amount data.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“a weight measuring device”, “a weight sensor configured to measure”, “a storage configured to store”, and “a processor configured to detect, determine, and execute processing”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (store information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 6 and 8 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Figs. 9 and 14; ¶¶0034-0041 and ¶¶0092-0101). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“a weight measuring device”, “a weight sensor configured to measure”, “a storage configured to store”, and “a processor configured to detect, determine, and execute processing”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (storing information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 6 and 8 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (See Figs. 9 and 14; ¶¶0034-0041 and ¶¶0092-0101). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited storing steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 6 and 8 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claims 6 and 8, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 6 and 8 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 6 and 8 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 6 and 8 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 6 and 8 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 11
Dependent claim(s) 9, 10, and 11, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 9, 10, and 11 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 8 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 8.
Claims 9, 10, and 11 set forth:
wherein the calculator is further configured to reduce the value of the remaining amount data in response to the detector detecting the operation has been detected and to maintain the value of the remaining amount data in response to the detector not detecting the operation.
wherein the detector is further configured to store count data indicating a number of detections of the operation in the storage.
wherein the calculator is further configured to activate the weight sensor when the operation has been detected, and deactivate the weight sensor in response to reducing the value of the remaining amount data stored in the storage.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of ordering a target object based on a measured weight of a target object. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 8, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 8.
Thus, dependent 9, 10, and 11 are ineligible.
Regarding claim 7
Dependent claim(s) 7 sets forth:
an acceleration sensor configured to detect a vibration of a container containing the measurement target object,
wherein the calculator is further configured to determine whether a number of detections of vibration detected by the acceleration sensor satisfies a judgment criterion and to maintain the value of the remaining amount data stored in the storage in response to determining the number of detections of vibrations does not satisfy the judgment criterion.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of ordering a target object based on a measured weight of a target object. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “an acceleration sensor” and “a container”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claim(s) 6, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraph [40] and [41] indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Further, the “acceleration sensor” and “container” are recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claim 7 is also ineligible.
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) 6, 8, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kramer et al. (US 10,909,610 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Kramer et al., hereinafter Kramer, discloses a weight measuring device (Figs. 1-6) comprising:
a weight sensor configured to measure weight data of a measurement target object (Fig. 3; col. 8, line 55 to col. 9, line 20 in view of col. 2, lines 19-54);
a storage configured to store remaining amount data of the measurement target object, the remaining amount data indicating a weight of the measurement target object measured after the measurement target object is used or after the measurement target object is refilled (Figs. 3-6; col. 10, line 49 to col. 11, line 43 and col. 15, line 49 to col. 17, line 15); and
a processor (Figs. 3-6) configured to function as:
a calculator configured to determine whether a value of the weight data is less than a value of the remaining amount data, reduce the value of the remaining amount data stored in the storage to be equal to the value of the weight data in response to determining the value of the weight data is less than the value of the remaining amount data, and to maintain the value of the remaining amount data stored in the storage in response to determining the value of the weight data is more than the value of the remaining amount data (Figs. 3-6; col. 15, line 25 to col. 18, line 20); and
an orderer (Figs. 3-6) configured to execute processing related to ordering of the measurement target object based on the value of the remaining amount data in response to the calculator determining the value of the weight data is less than the value of the remaining amount data, and to suppress the processing related to ordering of the measurement target object in response to the calculator determining the value of the weight data is more than the value of the remaining amount data (Figs. 3-6; col. 15, line 25 to col. 18, line 20).
Regarding claim 8, Kramer discloses a weight measuring device (Figs. 1-6) comprising:
a weight sensor configured to measure weight data of a measurement target object (Figs. 3-6; col. 8, line 55 to col. 9, line 20 in view of col. 2, lines 19-54);
a storage configured to store remaining amount data of the measurement target object, the remaining amount data indicating a weight of the measurement target object after the measurement target object is used or after the measurement target is refilled (Figs. 3-6; col. 10, line 49 to col. 11, line 43 and col. 15, line 49 to col. 17, line 15);
a processor (Figs. 3-6) configured to function as:
a detector configured to detect an operation on the measurement target object (Figs. 3-6; col. 4, line 61 to col. 5, line 61, col. 8, line 55 to col. 9, line 20, col. 15, line 25 to col. 18, line 20, and col. 17, lines 3-15 in view of col. 2, lines 19-54 and claim 7);
a calculator (Figs. 3-6) configured to determine, in response to the operation detected, whether a value of the weight data is less than a value of the remaining amount data, reduce the value of the remaining amount data stored in the storage to be equal to the value of the weight data in response to determining the value of the weight data is less than the value of the remaining amount data, and to maintain the value of the remaining amount data stored in the storage in response to determining the value of the weight data is more than the value of the remaining amount data (Figs. 3-6; col. 15, line 25 to col. 18, line 20); and
an orderer (Figs. 3-6) configured to execute processing related to ordering of the measurement target object based on the value of the remaining amount data in response to the calculator determining the value of the weight data is less than the value of the remaining amount data, and to suppress the processing related to ordering of the measurement target object in response to the calculator determining the value of the weight data is more than the value of the remaining amount data (Figs. 3-6; col. 15, line 25 to col. 18, line 20).
Regarding claim 9, Kramer discloses the weight measuring device according to claim 8, wherein the calculator is further configured to reduce the value of the remaining amount data in response to the detector detecting the operation has been detected and to maintain the value of the remaining amount data in response to the detector not detecting the operation (Figs. 3-6; col. 4, line 61 to col. 5, line 61, col. 8, line 55 to col. 9, line 20, col. 15, line 25 to col. 18, line 20 in view of col. 2, lines 19-54).
Regarding claim 10, Kramer discloses the weight measuring device according to claim 8, wherein the detector is further configured to store count data indicating a number of detections of the operation in the storage (Figs. 3-6; col. 4, line 61 to col. 5, line 61, col. 8, line 55 to col. 9, line 20, col. 15, line 25 to col. 18, line 20, and col. 17, lines 3-15 in view of col. 2, lines 19-54 and claim 7; Examiner notes “a running total” is comparable to a number of detections).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer in view of Alvo et al. (US 2018/0349980 A1 [previously recited]).
Regarding claim 7, Kramer discloses the weight measuring device according to claim 6 While Kramer further discloses further comprising:
an sensor configured to detect a container containing the measurement target object (Figs. 2-6; col. 6, line 31 to col. 10, line 15 and col. 15, line 25 to col. 18, line 20; Examiner notes an ARD with a container and/or surfaces are comparable to container), wherein
the calculator is further configured to determine whether a number detected by the sensor satisfies a judgment criterion and to maintain the value of the remaining amount data stored in the storage in response to determining the number does not satisfy the judgment criterion (Figs. 2-6; col. 6, line 31 to col. 10, line 15 and col. 15, line 25 to col. 18, line 20),
Kramer does not explicitly disclose an acceleration sensor configured to detect a vibration of a container, wherein the calculator determines a number of detections of vibration detected by the acceleration sensor, and determining the number of detections of vibration does not satisfy the judgment criterion. However, in the field of monitoring inventories of consumables (abstract), Alvo et al., hereinafter Alvo teaches an acceleration sensor configured to detect a vibration of a container, wherein the calculator determines a number of detections of vibration detected by the acceleration sensor, and determining the number of detections of vibration does not satisfy the judgment criterion (Figs. 1 and 6-7B; ¶0050 [other sensor data may describe other states or characteristics of a consumable item, such as a position, an orientation, motion, etc., especially relative to one or more points in time, whereby a change in state indicates usage] in view of ¶0022 [A sensor may also monitor usage of a consumable by detecting, for example, a change in weight, displacement, motion (e.g., including vibrations and intensity), orientation, or the like], ¶0027 [Sensors 160 may detect a characteristic of a consumable, such as a weight of the consumable, to determine or enhance a usage rate of consumable. As shown within inset 151, a weight monitoring sensor 160 may be integrated with a container 152 to form an inventoriable container 153. For example, inventoriable container 153 a may be configured to determine a weight of its contents, and thus, an amount of coffee or any other solid or liquid consumable. Inventoriable container 153 b may be configured to determine a weight of an amount of cereal, whereas inventoriable container 153 c may be configured to determine a weight of an amount of flour. In some implementations, weight monitoring sensor 180 may be implement without container 152 for use, for example, in a refrigerator to monitor a consumption rate of milk by monitoring a weight of a container of milk], and ¶¶0067-0068 in view of ¶0022, ¶0027, ¶0050). The acceleration sensor of Alov is applicable to the device of Kramer as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to indicating to a user it is time to reorder a product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the sensors as taught by Kramer with the acceleration sensor as taught by Alvo. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the device of Kramer in order for a sensor to detect motion such as vibrations (¶0022).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer in view of Hutchings et al. (US 2016/0300455 A1 [previously recited]).
Regarding claim 11, Kramer disclose the device of claim 10. While Kramer further discloses wherein the calculator is further configured to activate the weight sensor when the operation has been detected and perform an operation with the weight sensor in response to reducing the value of the remaining amount data stored in the storage (Figs. 3-6; col. 4, line 61 to col. 5, line 61, col. 8, line 55 to col. 9, line 20, col. 15, line 25 to col. 18, line 20, and col. 17, lines 3-15 in view of col. 2, lines 19-54 and claim 7), Kramer does not explicitly disclose deactivating the weight sensor. However, in the field of shopping transactions (abstract), Hutchings et al., hereinafter Hutchings, teaches deactivating weight sensors (¶0047). The weight sensor deactivation of Hutchings is applicable to the device of Kramer as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing products within a container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the weight sensor device as taught by Kramer with the deactivations as taught by Hutchings. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the device of Kramer in order to deactivate the weight sensors when the container is emptied (¶0047).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on page 7 of the Remarks filed 10/27/2025, with respect to the previous 35 USC §112(f) interpretations have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the currently amended claims. Accordingly the previous 35 USC §112(f) interpretation of the claims are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 7-9 of the Remarks filed 10/27/2025, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended claims in view of the Specification discloses a technical problem that the weight data may be increased as compared with the remaining amount data and suppressing an erroneous order from being placed with the weight of the remaining item increases provides a technical solution to a technical problem. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants arguments are directed to an improvement to the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(d) uses the term additional elements to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. The above argued limitations are part of the abstract idea of “ordering a target object based on a measured weight of a target object”, and does not contain any additional elements, such as hardware, beyond the abstract idea itself. Abstract ideas are not patent eligible, therefore this limitation cannot provide integration. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that eh improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to weight measuring devices, weight sensors, storage, or processors, and is specific only in their use in facilitating the abstract idea of ordering a target object based on a measured weight of a target object. The character of the claims as a whole is not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit. The claims of the instant application, however, merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. The claims lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the myriad of ineligible court decisions that employed generic computer components at a high-level to achieve improvements in commercial processes. In review of the claimed invention, and in consideration of the specification as originally filed, the Examiner asserts that:
(i) the claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process, and,
(ii) the specification, as originally filed, does not provide sufficient discloser or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and maintains the rejection Step 2A, Prong Two.
Accordingly, the previous 101 rejection of the claims is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 9-10 of the Remarks filed 10/27/2025, with respect to the 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103 rejections applied to applicant’s amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 10 of the Remarks filed 10/27/2025, with respect to the rejoinder have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as no claims are in condition for allowance.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688