DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on January 5, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 15 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 7-8, 11, 24-34 and 41 have been canceled.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 12-23, 35-40 and 42 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 5, 2026 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENTS
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 15 and 18 have been acknowledged.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments regarding 103 rejections have been considered, but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s arguments regarding 101 rejections have been considered but not found persuasive. Applicant argues:
The specific and detailed antenna configuration provides significantly more than an abstract idea.
Examiner’s Response: The claims describe a method for detecting items at a retail store which is a mental process (observation/evaluation) and a method of organizing a human activity (commercial interaction). The limitations on detecting items, affixing tags and detecting activity could be all performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. The additional elements of using RFID technology is simply applying known computer elements performing their ordinary functions as a tool to improve the abstract idea. Moreover, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed by computer elements. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). There are no improvements to the technology or any new technology involved.
Merely adding generic computer components to perform a method is not sufficient to take the claims out of a mental process and/or a method of organizing a human activity. Thus, the claims must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as a practical application or an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited commercial interaction) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. The claims are not patent-eligible.
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 1-6, 9-10, 12-23, 35-40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Regarding Claim 1, the claim describes a method for detecting items activity in a retail store which is a mental process (observation/evaluation) and a method of organizing a human activity (commercial interaction). The limitations on detecting items, affixing tags and detecting activity could be all performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. Other than reciting a camera, RFID tags and a read device, nothing in the claims precludes the steps for being performed in the human mind and/or the help of paper and pencil. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process and method of organizing a human activity grouping. There is no new technology or any technological improvement involved. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination are 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 using known RFID technology to perform the detecting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-6, 9-10, 12-23, 35-40 and 42, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the elements, processing steps and the information used. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-10, 12-23, 35-40 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (US 2018/0350218A1) in view of Bauer (US 2003/0174099A1) further in view of Forster (WO 2019/133347 A1).
Claim 1
Jeon discloses the following limitations:
A method for detecting one or more variable weight-price items or perishable items in vision- or camera-based checkout systems, (see at least abstract and paragraph 0018- The RFID readers tags detect RFID tags..the tag identifier can be further associated with other item information such as category of product (e.g. perishable)).
the method comprising affixing to the variable weight- price items one or more tags comprising an inlay comprising one or more unique digital identities and one or more digital triggers (see at least paragraph 0018-RFID tags can be affixed with and/or incorporated into packaging.. the tag identifier can be further associated with other item information such as category of product (e.g. perishable)).
and detecting. by local area read device, activity of the tagged variable weight-price items or perishable items, via the digital triggers in a localized area.(see at least paragraph 0019-receive in real time the RFID tag read information from the array of RFID readers to identify and/or track movement of items through the shopping facility; and paragraph 0029-detection of RFID tag being moved from a shelf).
Jeon discloses items inventory tracking using RFID technology, but does not explicitly disclose the proximity relationships on the following limitations; however, Bauer does:
wherein the local area read device is a smart shelf (see at least paragraph 0072-intelligent shelf).
and comprises a plurality of antennae that are classified as either short response or long response, (see at least paragraphs 0010-a reader unit with plurality of antennae; 0027-0028-short/long response antenna).
wherein the short response antenna is in close proximity to the one or more items to be detected and the long response antenna is in a proximity close to but further away from the one or more items to be detected than the short response antenna, and comprises a read field that is either higher in power than the short response antenna or uses a different type of RF read field (0027-0028-short/long response antenna).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply the dual range RFID configuration that combines short- and long-range antenna disclosed in Bauer to the invention of Jeon in order to improve system’s efficiency (Bauer paragraph 0010). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
The combination Jeon/Bauer does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
wherein the long response antenna is configured to detect the digital trigger within a read area of the short response antenna when the digital trigger is not detected by the short response antenna due to signal blocking between the digital trigger and the short response antenna. (conditional limitation-no patentable weight; when condition A does not occur, the step claimed does not occur either).
However, Forster in at least paragraph 0042 and figure 6 discloses using antennas having different response ranges and/or frequencies, increasing the range of a tag and implementing different configurations for effective RFID detection. Therefore, the lacking limitations above would have been an obvious configuration design choice in view of the teachings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further apply the teachings in Forster to the combination Jeon/Bauer in order to improve system’s efficiency (Forster paragraph 0042). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 2
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more digital triggers is selected from the group consisting of HF RFID, UHF RFID, NFC, QR codes, and combinations thereof (see at least paragraph 0018).
Claim 3
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the inlay is suitable for application to plastic packaging. (see at least paragraph 0018).
Claim 4
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the inlay is a low profile inlay. (see at least paragraph 0019).
Claim 5
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the inlay is a microwave-safe inlay. (see at least paragraph 0057).
Claim 6
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the tagged variable weight-price items are further detected by a wide area read device (see at least paragraph 0018-0019).
Claim 9
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the smart shelf comprises a phased array antenna (see at least paragraphs 0018 and 0029).
Claim 10
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the smart shelf comprises a parent-child shelf configuration. (see at least paragraphs 0018 and 0029).
Claim 12
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the wide area read device comprises a read zone or multiple read zones that covers the local read area (see at least paragraphs 0017-0018).
wherein the tagged variable weight-price item rests as well as the area around where the tagged variable weight-price item is merchandised. (see at least paragraphs 0017-0018).
Claim 13
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the wide area read device comprises a phased array of overhead readers that work with multiple read zones in a north, south, east, and west configuration. (see at least paragraphs 0017-0018).
Claim 14
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the tagged variable weight-price items or perishable items can be read using a handheld reader.(see at least paragraphs 0023 and 0051).
Claim 15
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the local area read device, contains edgeware which sends data directly from the read device or reader to one or more local and/or cloud destinations.(see at least paragraph 0051).
Claim 16
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the digital trigger further comprises electronic article surveillance (EAS) functionality (see at least paragraphs 0029-0030).
Claim 17
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the localized area is an area in a retail location (see at least abstract).
Claim 18
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the retail location is a grocery store (see at least paragraph 0018).
Claim 19
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the variable-weight items are selected from the group consisting of cheeses, meats, seafood, fruits, vegetables, and combinations thereof. (see at least paragraph 0018).
Claim 20
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the activity comprises inventory management or merchandising of the one or more weight-price or perishable items. (see at least paragraph 0016).
Claim 21
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the inventory management comprises confirming the presence or absence of the one or more items. (see at least paragraph 0016).
Claim 22
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the activity comprises adding or removing an item from the localized area.(see at least paragraph 0025).
Claim 23
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
the localized area is in a merchandising and/or storage area, wherein the local area is one of: a shelf, a series of shelves, a smart shelf or smart shelves, or a storage container for the variable weight-price items or perishable items (see at least paragraph 0029).
Claim 35
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more digital identities is configured as a machine readable code. (see at least paragraphs 0018-0019 and 0066).
Claim 36
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more digital identities is associated with metadata (see at least paragraphs 0014 and 0018).
Claim 37
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more digital identities is associated with an image. (see at least paragraph 0016).
Claim 38
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the inlay is a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) tag. (see at least paragraph 0065).
Claim 39
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more digital triggers comprises electronic article surveillance (EAS) functionality. (see at least paragraphs 0029-0030).
Claim 40
Furthermore Jeon discloses the following limitations:
wherein the inlay is suitable for application to plastic packaging. (see at least paragraph 0018).
Claim 42
Furthermore, Bauer discloses the following limitations:
wherein a read area of the short response antenna is within the confines of the smart shelf and wherein a read area of the long response antenna extends a distance beyond the confines of the smart shelf and with its farthest read edge at a distance from the physical shelf (see at least paragraphs 0027-0028 and 0161).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply the dual range RFID configuration that combines short- and long-range antenna disclosed in Bauer to the invention of Jeon in order to improve system’s efficiency (Bauer paragraph 0010). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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 A Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights