DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Amendment” filed on 10/06/2025 has been considered.
Claims 1 and 19 are amended. Claims 1 and 19-23 remain pending in this application and an action on the merits follow.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claims has not overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation includes “determining, based on a determination that (ii) a drive up orders frequency in the bag checkout history data is less than a threshold drive up order frequency, an amount to increase the shopper trust score”. The spec describes if the shopper engages in drive up orders that is less than the threshold drive up frequency, the shopper may not be as trustworthy as another shopper (paragraph 82). Therefore, the shopper trust score is supposed to be decreased not increased. The specification does not support and describe how to determine an amount to increase the shopper trust score based on “a drive up orders frequency in the bag checkout history data is less than a threshold drive up order frequency”.
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 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 USC 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because claims 1 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 20-23 fail to remedy these deficiencies.
The claims 1 and 19 recite receiving shopper information, retrieving bag checkout history data which includes a shopper trust score, determining a frequency for check the shopper’s bag based on applying a random offset value, determining whether to perform a bag check on the shopper, returning bag check instructions, presenting an indication, initiating an automated bag check, determining whether a threshold quantity of content of the shopper’s bag matches transaction data, adjusting the shopper trust score that comprises, determining an amount to increase the shopper trust score and adjusting the shopper trust score, dynamically adjusting the frequency, and returning the adjusted shopper trust score and the adjusted frequency for checking the shopper’s bag.
The claims 1 and 19 recite determining a frequency for check the shopper’s bag, determining whether to perform a bag check on the shopper, determining whether a threshold quantity of content of the shopper’s bag matches transaction data, and determining an amount to increase the shopper trust score as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer system comprising a checkout station having at least a scanning device and a display and a bag check station having at least a scanning device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a computer system comprising a checkout station having at least a scanning device and a display and a bag check station having at least a scanning device” language, “determining” in the context of these claims encompasses a user manually determines a frequency for check the shopper’s bag using a randomization process, determines whether to perform a bag check, determines whether a threshold quantity of content of the shopper’s bag matches transaction data, and determines an amount to increase the shopper trust score. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 19 recite returning bag check instructions, presenting, initiating, adjusting the shopper trust score comprises adjusting, dynamically adjusting, and returning the adjusted shopper trust score and the adjusted frequency steps as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of managing human activity for commercial interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer system comprising a checkout station having at least a scanning device and a display and a bag check station having at least a scanning device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by organizing human activity for commercial interactions. For example, but for “a computer system comprising a checkout station having at least a scanning device and a display and a bag check station having at least a scanning device” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually presents an indication and bag check instructions, performs/initiates an automated bag check, dynamically adjusts the shopper trust score and the frequency for checking the shopper’s bag, and returns the result for use in the future. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing commercial interactions and fundamental economic practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because receiving and retrieving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of retrieving data) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving, retrieving, determining, returning, presenting, initiating, adjusting, dynamically adjusting, and returning in a computer environment. The claimed computer components such as the computer system, the checkout station, the bag check station, the scanning device, and the display are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform receiving, retrieving, determining, returning, presenting, initiating, adjusting, dynamically adjusting, and returning in a computer environment steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. 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. The claims 1 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1 and 19 do not include additional elements that 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 elements of using the computer system, the checkout station, the bag check station, the scanning device, and the display to perform receiving, retrieving, determining, returning, presenting, initiating, adjusting, dynamically adjusting, and returning in a computer environment steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 1 and 19 are not patent eligible.
Claims 20-23, disclose insignificant helpful content to further describe content, such as where the bag check station is located, presenting the bag check instruction at a suer device, an indication is generated on the receipt, and decreasing the frequency of bag checks, which are merely descriptive content to further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 20-23 are directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because descriptive content in claims 20-23 further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 20-23 are directed to an abstract idea.
There are no additional claim element limitations recited in the claims20-23. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 20-23 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed on 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicants remark that “The claimed processes and improvements resulting therefrom are inextricably tied to the speed and processing power of a computer system. Therefore, the claims do not recite a mental process. Instead, the concept of a bag check frequency and/or trust score is inextricably tied to the claimed technological context: an automated computer-implemented data-driven system that uses information dynamically and adaptively in real-time to improve the efficiency of physical machines (checkout terminals and/or bag check stations) operating in a physical space (the retail environment). Therefore, the claims do not "recite" a judicial exception. In Example 45, Claim 2, a controller for an injection mold was found eligible because the claims used a calculated value "to control the operation of the injection molding apparatus". This was found to be an "other meaningful limitation" that integrated the exception into a practical application. Therefore, consistent with Office's guidance, the currently pending claims integrate any recited abstract concepts into a practical application that improves a specific technology, and thus are not "directed to" a judicial exception.”
Examiner does not agree. The claims 1 and 19 recites steps as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and managing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claimed computer components in claims 1 and 19 are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform functions in more efficiency and speeded way in a computer environment. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., limitation in the mind and managing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
The claimed invention in Example 45, Claim 2 is not the same as the scope of claims 1 and 19. Examiner does not found any meaningful limitation that integrated the exception into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
The claim limitation does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effects an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Using a randomization model and apply this model is generic data process. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, the claim amounts to nothing significantly more than using the randomization process on a computer to determine a shopper trust score and apply those determinations to efficiently manage a bag check frequency to minimize risk. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL J YU whose telephone number is (571)270-3312. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM (M-F).
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, Obeid Fahd A can be reached on 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.
/ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627