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 Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 07/23/2025.
Claims 1,6,10-11 have been amended.
Claims 19-21 have been added.
Claims 9 and 12 have been canceled.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 07/23/2025 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-18 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Step 2A:
Applicant argues that “the claims are directed to ensuring that an "individual product" (e.g., a perishable product with a best-by date that is selected by a user for purchase based on the condition of the product as obtained from the updated product image) is the actual product that the user selected, as opposed to another product (which may be of the same type or even the same best-by date as the selected product). This solution helps ensure that the product being delivered is actually the specific product that the user selected based on an image of the individual product that is taken at a specific time (i.e., when the product became a price- reduction target), and further allows the store to accurately maintain inventory. The claims recite specific technical features that achieve this solution. For example, claim 1 recites, among other features, "[capturing] an image of a first product, [extracting] second feature data from the image of the first product, wherein the second feature data comprises information relating to a position of at least one corner of a product label of the first product, [determining] whether the second feature data matches the first feature data, upon determining that the second feature data matches the first feature data, determining that the first product is the individual product, and upon receiving a predetermined operation indicating that the first product has been delivered to the user, [transmitting], to the server, an electronic signal indicating a delivery completion notification" These features are not recited at a high-level, but rather recite a specific, unconventional way of ensuring that a delivered product is the individual product selected based on the captured image. Therefore, the above-noted features do not fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" grouping of abstract ideas. In any event, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two (page 5/12)”.
Examiner disagrees. "[capturing] an image of a first product, [extracting] second feature data from the image of the first product, wherein the second feature data comprises information relating to a position of at least one corner of a product label of the first product, [determining] whether the second feature data matches the first feature data, upon determining that the second feature data matches the first feature data, determining that the first product is the individual product, and upon receiving a predetermined operation indicating that the first product has been delivered to the user, [transmitting], to the server, an electronic signal indicating a delivery completion notification” is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
Also, capturing] an image of a first product, [extracting] second feature data from the image of the first product, wherein the second feature data comprises information relating to a position of at least one corner of a product label of the first product, [determining] whether the second feature data matches the first feature data, upon determining that the second feature data matches the first feature data, determining that the first product is the individual product, and upon receiving a predetermined operation indicating that the first product has been delivered to the user, [transmitting], to the server, an electronic signal indicating a delivery completion notification fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (ensuring that a delivered product is the individual product selected based on the captured image) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-18 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Applicant argues that “claims are directed to an improvement in the technical field of inventory tracking and delivery. For example, claim 1 recites a system in which a server has a processor configured to: …; Claim 1 further recites a user terminal with a camera and a processor configured to:….;. and paragraphs [0019]-[0020] of the original specification describe technical advantages in picking up a correct product, offered by the claimed subject matter (e.g., "the individual identification information of the individual product is (i) a unique number extracted from code information of a product label on the individual product" as recited in amended claim 1). Paragraphs [0079]-[0081] of the original specification describe technical advantages in identifying a picked-up product among a plurality of products, offered by the claimed subject matter (e.g., "the individual identification information of the individual product is ... (ii) a character string or feature data extracted from the product image" and "the individual identification information of the individual product and the product image of the individual product are associated with each other"). Accordingly, the claims integrate features into a practical application (e.g., product picking/tracking/delivery systems) that improves the efficiency and accuracy of tracking/picking up/delivering products. The claims should be found eligible for at least this reason (page 9/12)”.
Examiner disagrees. A server has a processor that is configured to perform a certain function (s) does not change nor effect the actual computer itself. The computer still has the same processor, the same amount of memory, and still functions in the stands way a computer is intended to function. Thus, there is no change to the computer itself or the way in which it is capable of functioning. Any purported improvement in regards to performing inventory tracking and delivery that are required to processes by the computer, set are rooted solely in perform the identified abstract idea that is merely being applied with a general-purpose computer. Improvements of this nature are improvements in inelligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). The purported improvements are rooted solely in the abstract idea itself that is merely applied using a general purpose computer. As such, an purported improvement in what the applicant calls a technical field is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. In order for an improvement to a technology or technological filed to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection, the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements" which in this case they are not. The claimed additional elements are merely a general purpose computer upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2.
As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem.
Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-18 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Furthermore, It has been held that Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (CA FC 1993).
Applicant argues that “the specific combination of features recited in the present claims similarly should be found to provide meaningful limitations to the practical application of product delivery and management. As set forth above, it relies on the unconventional use of a camera to obtain first and second image data to determine if a product selected by a user is the same product that is delivered to the user, specifically reciting the manner by which that is accomplished (i.e., by comparing first feature data with second feature data, wherein the first feature data comprises information relating to a position of at least one corner of the product label of the individual product). Nothing in the specification or prior art of record indicates that this specific combination of features was routine or conventional. For this additional reason, Applicant submits that the pending claims are patent eligible and that the rejection under § 101 should be withdrawn (page 11/12)”.
Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., use of a camera to obtain first and second image data to determine if a product selected by a user is the same product that is delivered to the user are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
the use of a camera to obtain first and second image data to determine if a product selected by a user is the same product that is delivered to the user fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (product delivery and management) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process.
Furthermore, comparing first feature data with second feature data, wherein the first feature data comprises information relating to a position of at least one corner of the product label of the individual product) is is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
Additionally, rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103 has no bearing or consequence on the materiality of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As noted in the prior office action, the additional claim features do not amount to significantly more under the framework. The claim does not qualify under the other non-limiting non-exclusive examples. in order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection, the technical solution to a technical problem must be rooted in the "additional elements". Additional elements are defined as those elements outside the identified abstract idea itself. As thus, the only additional elements in the claim that would be capable of overcoming the 101 are a general-purpose computer with generic computer components upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied. As such, an purported improvement in what the applicant calls a technical field is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. In order for an improvement to a technology or technological filed to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection, the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements" which in this case they are not. The claimed additional elements are merely a general purpose computer upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem.
Hence, Examiner maintains that the claims do not define substantially more than the abstract idea. therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-18 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
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 1-8, 10-11, 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1-8, 19 are directed to a machine (i.e. a system); claim (s) 10,13-15 , 20 are directed to a process (i.e. a method); claim (s) 11,16-18, 21 are directed to a manufacture (i.e. a non transitory computer medium).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of: “ receive product data of an individual product that has become a price-reduction target in a store, the product data including at least a product code indicating a type of the individual product, a product image of the individual product showing a condition of the individual product at a time that the individual product became the price-reduction target, offered price information of the individual product, and individual identification information of the individual product, wherein the individual identification information of the individual product is (i) a unique number extracted from code information of a product label on the individual product or (ii) a character string or feature data extracted from the product image, create, in a product image database, a record in which the individual identification information of the individual product and the product image of the individual product are associated with each other, and receive an updated product image of the individual product, and update the record in the product image database with the updated product image; wherein: the user terminal comprises a processor configured to, upon the individual product being selected by the user: acquire, the product image in the product image database and the offered price information of the individual product and [[to]] cause [[a]] the display to show the acquired product image and the offered price information; and upon receiving a payment request for the individual product, perform a payment process for the individual product, acquire, the first feature data extracted from the product image, capture a second image of a first product, extract second feature data from the image of the first product, wherein the second feature data comprises information relating to a position of at least one corner of a product label of the first product, determine whether the second feature data matches the first feature data, upon determining that the second feature data matches the first feature data, determine that the first product is the individual product, and upon receiving a predetermined operation indicating that the first product has been delivered to the user, transmit, an electronic signal indicating a delivery completion notification”; The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “system, terminal, server, processor camera”, The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) 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).
Rather, the limitations merely add 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)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of “system, terminal, server, processor, display”, to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 18,27, 43-48, 65, 70); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receiving a predetermined operation indicating that the first product has been delivered to the user.
transmit, to the server, an electronic signal indicating a delivery completion notification.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 10-11.
The dependent claims 2-9, 13-14 and 16-18 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding the additional steps of he product data is associated with expiration information related to an expiration date of the individual product, showing expiration information of the individual product selected by the user, together with the product image (claims 2,13,16); store the individual identification information of the individual product in association with the product image (claim 3); print the individual identification information on a print medium to be attached to a product corresponding to the individual identification information (claim 4); print the code information that contains the individual identification information (claim 5); update product image code at least once during a predetermined period (claim 6); a condition of the individual product, which is estimated from a result of analyzing an image of the individual product (claim 7); the product data includes control information indicating a controlled state while the individual product is preserved (claim 8); payment process has been performed by the server, against feature information that is extracted from a product image of a product in the store (claims 9,14-15,16-18); which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No).
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims 1,10-11.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-21 recite subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the Applicant were to be able to overcome the claim rejection under 35 USC § 101 rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Shiraishi, US Pub no: 2020/0342264 A1, teaches learning data generation device, learning data generation method and recording medium.
Suzuki et al, US Pat No: 11,734,987 B2, teaches vending machine control system, vending machine and information output method.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is files within TWO MONTHS from 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [ Mon-Thursday 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 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 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.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights