DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received on November 12, 2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 11-20 remain withdrawn and amendments to claim 1 has been entered. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 recite subject matter allowable over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The specification clearly identifies specific technical problems in the field of retail transaction systems that are solved by the claimed invention.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees in part. Applicant has provided information from the specifications to support technical improvements within the art of retail transaction systems. The Subject Matter Eligibility Declaration (SMED) memo states that the Applicant may provide evidence to rebut the 35 USC 101 rejection. Applicant is advised to submit a 37 CFR 1.132 declaration to support the technical improvements outlined within the remarks.
Applicant argues: “The specification describes how the claimed invention solves these technical problems through a specific technological solution.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees in part. As stated above, the claimed technological improvements such as:
1. Reduces computer processing time through pre-cached feature vectors
2. Increases processor throughput through memory-efficient operations
3. Improves system response times by avoiding processor-intensive fine-grain recognition
4. Enhances computer memory efficiency through coarse-grain verification
Would require the submission of evidence as required by the SMED memo. As analyzed under the current guidelines the claims are directed toward mere software to conduct a mental process of comparing images to determine similar and dissimilar items.
Applicant argues: “Amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 because it recites a specific technological process for improving transaction processing systems. However, even if any element were considered abstract, the claims are integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2..”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues multiple points including:
A. Amended Claim 1 Improves Computer Technology and Technical Fields (Step 2A Prong 2)
The amended claim improves the functioning of transaction processing computer systems themselves. This places the claims squarely within patent-eligible subject matter under numerous Federal Circuit precedents.
As stated above, the improvements to the functioning of the transaction processing computer system would need evidence submitted by expert testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim limitations, in view of the specification along with a 37 CFR 1.132 declaration.
B. The Claims Effect a Transformation (Step 2A Prong 2) The claims transform data from one state to another in a meaningful way.
MPEP 2106.05(c) states: "Transformation" of an article means that the "article" has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. The item placed on the produce scale is not changed from a different state or thing, nor is the image captured. A mental judgement is being performed on the image captured to determine whether the item in the image is similar or dissimilar. The process is performed by mere software and no transformation is conducted of the image or item.
C. The Claims Apply the Technology in a Meaningful Way Beyond Linking to a Technological Environment (Step 2A Prong 2).
The amended claims now include a produce scale, a transaction interface and a transaction terminal. The produce scale is incapable of capturing an image and represents a position or location in which an image is captured, the produce scale does not perform the functions of capturing the weight of the item and therefore not a significant component. The transaction interface is no more than a keyboard that performs generic computer functions such as receiving an input from the operator. The transaction terminal is a generic point of sale and describes the environment in which the image capturing is taking place. The combination of these additional elements are not enough to qualify as "significantly more", because the additional elements do not meaningfully limits the judicial exception.
Under the current guidance in order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection Applicant must submit a 37 CFR 1.132 declaration along with evidence to support the technological improvements.
Applicant argues: “IV. THE CLAIMS PROVIDE AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT (STEP 2B) Even if the claims were directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant respectfully submits they are not), the amended claims provide significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to: the Examiner has not provided any evidence that the specific combination and arrangement of elements in amended claim 1 was well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art at the time of filing.
There is no requirement for the Examiner to provide evidence that the specific combination and arrangement of elements are well-understood, routine or conventional. The initial claims examined failed to include any computer components and recited limitations at a high level of generality such as receiving, obtaining and determining. These limitations were interpreted to be computer functions and therefore failed to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In regards to: B. The Ordered Combination Provides Significantly More
As stated above, the newly amended claims recite a produce scale, transaction interface and a transaction terminal. The scale as describes performs no technical function only for the item to be placed upon it, the transaction interface allows an operator to provide input and the transaction terminal is well known in the art as a point of sale terminal. The claim relies on the method steps of software to execute the comparison between a captured image of an item and a model image of a reference item. This is using software to execute a mental process which the courts have concluded to be an abstract idea.
In regards to: C. The Claims Improve an Existing Technology.
MPEP 2106.05(a) states: Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification.
Examiner recommends adding language that ties the functions of each component in the instant claim. For example, upon the item being placed on the produce scale triggering a camera or scanner to capture a raw image of the item…the item code entered by the operator on the transaction interface of the transaction terminal the item code is used to retrieve a model of a reference item.
Applicant argues: “1. The Claims Require Machine Learning Models and Specific Computer Operations.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims recite mere software to perform human activity of comparing a received image and a reference image and evaluating whether the images are similar or dissimilar based on a calculated value. There is no improvement to the functioning of the transaction terminal or transaction processing.
In regards to: 2. The USPTO’s own Guidance Confirms These are not Mental Processes.
Although the language in the claims may appear complex the feature vectors that are being compared are shape, texture, color, edges, lines and dimensions of an item (Specification, ¶ [0016]). This comparison can be conducted by the human mind where one can discern the differences between an apple and an orange or a plantain and a banana when given prior training.
In regards to: 3. The Federal Circuit Has Repeatedly Found Similar Claims Do Not Recite Mental Processes.
The recited claims do not provide the technical underpinnings of SRI Int’l, and Finjan. SRI Int’l is directed toward using a specific technique—using a plurality of network monitors that each analyze specific types of data on the network and integrating reports from the monitors—to solve a technological problem arising in computer networks: identifying hackers or potential intruders into the network. The instant claims invoke software to conduct a comparison of a raw image to a stored image.
Finjan was found to be eligible because of the capability to perform a "behavior-based" virus scan, which was found to be different from traditional, "code-matching" virus scans that are limited to recognizing the presence of previously-identified viruses, typically by comparing the code in a downloadable to a database of known suspicious code. The instant claim utilizes features derived from a raw image to compare with a stored image to determine similarity, which fails to state how the similarity improves the transaction terminal or the field of transaction processing.
Applicant argues: “The Claims Recite More Than Generic Computer Functions”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The indication of allowable subject matter over the prior art of record does not equate to the claims being eligible over 35 USC 101. The claims recite mere software used to compare images to determine similarity. The SMED memo requires the Applicant submit evidence along with evidence to support the improvements as stated to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection.
Applicant argues: “C. The Produce Scale and Transaction Terminal Are Not Mere Placeholders”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As suggested above, the claims fail to include functional limitations and elements such as a camera/scanner that is triggered when the weight of an item is captured from the produce scale. The claims lack functional limitations that utilizes the known function of a produce scale, camera/scanner and transaction interface to operate in concert in an unconventional manner. The instant claims utilizes the produce scale as a place to position the item, nothing in the claim utilizes the function of the produce scale. The combination of produce scale, transaction interface and transaction terminal all function together in the same conventional manner. The produce scale where items are placed, a transaction interface to enter a price look up code and a transaction terminal that defines the environment in which the image capture is taking place. The claims describe software that is invoked to determine if a raw image is similar to a stored image. The process does not improve the ability to quickly determine the item captured on the produce scale or enhance the speed in which the product look up code is entered, nor does the determination of similar items within an image improve the speed or performance of the transaction terminal. The claims recite a mental process performed by computer software.
Applicant argues: “VI. Alignment With USPTO’s July 2024 AI Guidance”
Examiner disagrees in part. 1. Use AI/ML technology to improve computer system performance (reduced response times, increased throughput). Examiner urges the Applicant to file a 37 CFR 1.132 along with evidence to support the improvement to the computer system performance.
2. Recite specific AI/ML implementation details (second MLM, feature vector inputs/outputs, confidence values). The recited AI/ML implementations is mere software that is invoked to execute the abstract idea.
3. Solve a technical problem in a technological field (transaction processing systems). It is unclear whether the determination of whether an item is similar or dissimilar to a stored image solves a technical problem in transaction processing system. The determination appears to disconnected from the transaction process.
4. Are not directed to the AI/ML training process itself (which falls within withdrawn claims 13-20). Claims 11-20 were withdrawn for being directed to different invention and would need to be cancelled for the instant claims to be issued to allowance.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed November 12, 2025, with respect to 35 USC 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102/103 rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-11 has been withdrawn.
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 1-10 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) receiving an image of an item and an operator-provided item code associated with the item, wherein receiving further comprises receiving the image responsive to the item being placed on a produce scale of a transaction terminal and the item code being entered into or selected from a transaction interface by an operator of the transaction terminal;
obtaining at least one model feature vector derived from a model image of a reference item linked to the item code;
obtaining a current feature vector for the image of the item;
determining a confidence value indicative of an extent of similarity between the current feature vector and the at least one model feature vector, determining a confidence value indicative of an extent of similarity between the current feature vector and the at least one model feature vector, wherein determining further comprises providing the at least one model feature vector and the current feature vector as input to a second machine learning model (MLM) and receiving the confidence value indicating the extent to which the current feature vector is similar or dissimilar to the at least one model feature vector as output from the second MLM, and wherein determining further includes comparing the confidence value to a threshold value or a threshold range of values and determining whether the current feature vector is similar or dissimilar to the at least one model feature vector; and
determining whether the item is similar or dissimilar to the reference item based on the confidence value.
The steps of the method, as drafted, provide a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers concepts performed by the human mind. This is because claim 1 describes making a comparison between images to determine similarity. This represents the performance observations, evaluation and opinion.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the ““Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. To the extent that receiving may be interpreted as an additional element (if interpreted as a user input), then this additional element would also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. If the receiving step is interpreted to include a computer or user input, then this is recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic function of receiving a user input) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Similarly, a
user input would not be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical
application, the additional element of a user input amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In addition to the above, the obtaining and determining steps represent little more than extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering or outputting) that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method. The claim is patent ineligible.
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 include the additional elements of a produce scale, transaction interface and transaction terminal. The produce scale is used to position items in order to invoke software, the transaction interface is used to provide input for the operator and the transaction terminal defines the environment in which the operation is taking place. In combination the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 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 claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional, including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
performing repetitive calculations,
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
The dependent claims also are patent ineligible. Claims 2-4 recites the additional element of a transaction terminal is recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 4 additional recites a produce scale that is a placeholder for the items place atop of it and performs no computing or function to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 5-10, further describe the abstract idea by claiming generic computer functions such as searching a cache, providing an input into a machine learning algorithm, calculating and comparing computed values. All of which are generic computer functions and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sampson et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0138488 discusses a method can include receiving first images of produce. The method can further include executing a first machine learning model to generate second images of produce based on the first images of produce. The first images of produce can include (1) images of non-bagged produce or (2) images of bagged produce. The second images of produce can include the other of (1) images of non-bagged produce or (2) images of bagged produce. The method can further include training a second machine learning model based on the first images of produce and the second images of produce. The method can further include executing, after the training, the second machine learning model to classify as a bagged produce or a non-bagged produce an image not included in the first images and not included in the second images. Abstract
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 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 ASHFORD S HAYLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5106. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM with Flex.
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 5712703324. 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.
/ASHFORD S HAYLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627