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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1,6,10-11 have been amended.
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 04/06/2026 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, 13-21 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Step 2A, Prong One
Applicant argues that “claim 1 recites that the server receives an updated product image, identifies from the product image database a record including feature data that matches feature data extracted from the updated product image, and updates the product image in the identified record. Moreover, the feature data includes the specific detail of "information relating to a position of at least one corner of a product label of the individual product," representing a highly-specific way of identifying the same product across multiple images. These features are not recited at a high-level, but rather recite a specific and unconventional way of tracking a product across multiple images through feature data matching performed by the server. As the claims are not directed to and do not recite an abstract idea, the claims are patent- eligible (page 5/9)”.
Examiner disagrees. tracking a product across multiple images through feature data matching performed by the server , where the server “ receives an updated product image, identifies from the product image database a record including feature data that matches feature data extracted from the updated product image, and updates the product image in the identified record. Moreover, the feature data includes the specific detail of "information relating to a position of at least one corner of a product label of the individual product," that represents a highly-specific way of identifying the same product across multiple images 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, the use of the “server” 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 (a highly-specific way of identifying the same product across multiple images and / or tracking a product across multiple images through feature data matching ) 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, 13-21 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Applicant argues that “Similar to the claims in Ex Parte Desjardins, which were deemed patent-eligible based in part on the specification of the relevant patent application describing technological improvements, the current claims are patent-eligible at least in part based on improvements to image-based, computer-implemented product identification described in paragraphs [0079]- [0081] of the specification. See, USPTO Memorandum dated December 5, 2025 referencing Ex Parte Desjardins. Paragraphs [0079]-[0081] of the specification describe how extracted feature data from images can include label position such as coordinates of label corners, allowing for disambiguation between products with similar labels ( page 7/9)”.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claims bear no similarity to the Ex Parte Desjardins Holdings decision, because the instant claim simply do not recite and/or using a machine learning model to train any data, whereas Ex Parte Desjardins (claims to a method of training a machine learning model were directed to improvements in the machine learning technology itself and additionally included data structure elements reciting adjustments in values to plurality of performance parameters while preserving prior values). Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), in which the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about 2 previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.
As such, the examiner finds no similarity between the instant claims and the Ex Parte Desjardins Holdings decision. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-21 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “ the technical improvement described in paragraph [0079] of using feature information including a "label position of a product label attached to a product (e.g., coordinates of four corners of the label)" as product-identifying information is reflected in amended claim 1 in at least the feature of "individual identification information of the individual product includes feature data extracted from the product image, wherein the feature data comprises information relating to a position of at least one corner of a product label of the individual product." The claims further recite that the server is configured to "identify, from the product image database, a record including the feature data that matches feature data extracted from the updated product image," demonstrating the specific technical mechanism for product identification across multiple images. Thus, the current claim language reflects the technical improvement described in the specification and does not require any reading in of limitations from the specification. As the claims recited a practical application of any alleged abstract idea, the claims are patent-eligible (page 7/9)”.
Examiner disagrees. Since the feature of “individual identification information of the individual product includes feature data extracted from the product image, wherein the feature data comprises information relating to a position of at least one corner of a product label of the individual product."; “ identify, from the product image database, a record including the feature data that matches feature data extracted from the updated product image," are part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are ““system, terminal, server, processor camera”,”, as evidenced by applicant specification [18,27, 43-48, 65, 70] which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied.
Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (SAP v. Investpic decision: 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 Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-21 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Step 2B -The Claimed Elements Amount to Significantly More Than the Alleged Abstract Idea:
Applicant argues that “The present claims recite non-conventional features that were not well-understood, routine or conventional. represent an improvement over systems, as discussed above. The recited combination of elements amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The specific combination of features recited in the present claims provide meaningful limitations to the practical application of product tracking across multiple images. As set forth above, the claims recite an unconventional approach to image-based product identification, wherein the server receives an updated product image, identifies from the product image database a record including feature data that matches feature data extracted from the updated product image, and updates the product image in the identified record. The claims specifically recite the manner by which product identification is accomplished (i.e., by comparing feature data extracted from the product image with feature data extracted from the updated product image, wherein the feature data comprises information relating to a position of at least one corner of a 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. As the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea, the claims are patent-eligible. For the reasons outlined above, Applicant submits that the pending claims are patent- eligible and requests that the rejection under § 101 be withdrawn (page 8/9)”.
Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(d) requires that the examiner determine whether the "additional element(s)" of a claim are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry in regards to evaluating the claim under Step 2b. Berkheimer requires the examiner to provided proof of "additional elements" that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. "Additional elements" are defined as those element outside the identified abstract itself. The only additional elements of the argued limitations are “system, terminal, server, processor camera”, as evidenced by applicant specification [18,27, 43-48, 65, 70] which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. A general-purpose computer which merely applies an abstract idea is insufficient to be considered "significantly more" under Step 2b as clearly indicated in at least MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). 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
Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-21 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-21 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most relevant prior the examiner has found is:
Tkachenke et al, US Pub No: 2014/0316875 A1, teaches a method for dynamically pricing vended products includes: identifying a purchase pattern of a user at a vending machine; in response to an approaching sell-by date for a unit of a product loaded into the vending machine and based on the purchase pattern, setting a discount rate for the unit of the product for the user; transmitting an electronic communication to an account associated with the user, the electronic communication indicating the discount rate for the unit of the product; identifying the user in a transaction initiated at the vending machine; and in response to selection of the unit of the product from the vending machine during the transaction, initiating a payment with a payment mechanism supplied by the user according to the discount rate.
Allen et al, US Pat No: 10,628,862 B2 teaches A system and method for providing shoppers with product freshness notifications, comprise a beacon that determines that a fresh perishable item of interest has been added to a store shelf; an updater that updates the system with information about the fresh perishable item added to the store shelf; and a notification generator that sends a notification to a mobile electronic device of the shopper regarding the addition of the fresh perishable item to the store shelf.
Sambasivan et al, US Pub No, 2023/0245133 A1, teaches Systems and methods for assessing quality of and detecting defects in retail products include a housing having an interior, a product holding surface, an image capture device configured to capture an image of the product, a lighting element configured to provide lighting within the housing, an electronic database configured to store electronic data including reference image data associated with the product and representing the product in various sizes and various quality states, and a processor-based control circuit in communication with the first image capture device and the electronic database. The control circuit is configured to obtain image data representing the image of the product, obtain the reference image data, analyze the image data and the reference image data to identify the product and identify a size of a defect present on the product, and output a notification indicating whether or not the product is of acceptable quality.
While it may be obvious to combine and using the above mentioned inventions. However, the combination of the above mentioned inventions does not disclose the instant claimed steps. Thus, the Examiner has been unable to find a prior art that discloses and performing the claimed invention in the manner claimed. As such, claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-21 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Huynh US Pub No: 2020/0111079 A1 teaches A Near Field Communication (NFC) system, method, and computer program product are provided for interacting with a customer device enabled with a NFC scanning capability. The NFC system includes a checkout price tag initiating a purchase transaction for a product associated with the checkout price tag responsive to a scanning of the checkout price tag. The checkout price tag has a customer device scannable NFC physical tag encoded with a unique identifier, a product price, and a description of the product.
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 [M- R 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