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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 12/30/2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 16, and 19-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 1-18 are directed to methods, and claims 19-20 are directed to a machine. Claims 1, 11, and 19 are parallel in nature, therefore, the analysis will use claim 11 as the representative claim.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Claim 11 (and similarly claim 19) recites abstract concepts including: generating a data structure that identifies predicted item codes for non-barcoded items purchased by customer, wherein generating includes identifying each customer using a unique loyalty account or identifier within loyalty data, and identifying historical transactions for a corresponding customer from transaction data using a corresponding loyalty account, and generating a set of historical non-barcoded item transaction records for each customer from a corresponding customer’s historical transactions; integrating access to the data structure into a loyalty account ... of the customer; and providing access to the data structure through the loyalty account to enhance a transaction ... during a current transaction of the customer by presenting at least one of the predicted item codes as a selectable option to the customer for a current non-barcoded item in addition to an item code searching option provided by the transaction ... .
Claim 1 recites abstract concepts including: maintaining a list of predicted item codes for non-barcoded items based on a transaction history of a customer, wherein maintaining further includes generating a set of historical non- barcoded item transaction records for the customer from a customer's historical transactions, wherein each record includes items processed in the customer's historical transactions for which an item code was manually entered or provided during a current transaction as an indication of a previously purchased non-barcoded item, and analyzing the set of historical non-barcoded item transaction records to obtain a variety of metrics and patterns; providing a predicted item code obtained from the list of predicted item codes during the current transaction of the customer ... responsive to an indication that the customer is operating ... to locate a potential item code for a current non- barcoded item; and causing ... to present the predicted item code to the customer as a selectable item code for the current non-barcoded item before the customer performs an item code search ... for the potential item code.
These identified limitations set forth the abstract idea of “predicting item codes for non-barcoded items”, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping as this concept is a sales activity or behavior. Additionally, the limitations reciting generating, integrating access, and providing access to a data structure are described at such a high level they could be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally generate a list, associate the list with a loyalty account (integrate access to the data structure), and make the list available (provide access to the data structure). Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 19 recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
In Step 2A, Prong Two Examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instant claims 1, 11, and 19 recite additional elements including: a terminal; a loyalty system; a transaction interface of a terminal; at least one server comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions. The loyalty system and transaction interface are understood to refer to executable instructions (specification ¶ [0012]-[0013]), and the server, processor, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are not described in any relevant detail to distinguish this hardware from generic computer components. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f), the 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., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The additional elements, in combination with the identified abstract limitations, amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the abstract idea with a generic computer which cannot provide integration. See MPEP 2106.05. Claims 1, 11, and 19 are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the 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).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a general computer components. For the same reason, the elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 19 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 11-17 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea without reciting any further additional elements. Thus dependent claims 2-10 and 11-17 are also ineligible.
Dependent claim 18 recites additional elements including: providing an application programming interface call to retrieve the data structure using a loyalty identifier for the loyalty account. Similar to the additional elements identified above, the application programming interface call is described in ordinary terms and merely used as a tool in performance of the abstract idea. The additional element does not provide integration or provide significantly more than the abstract idea because it simply applies the abstract idea with an API without any recitation of details of how to carry out the retrieving. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, claim 18 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 20 recite additional elements including: wherein the terminal is a self-service terminal ... or the terminal is a point-of-sale terminal. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Confining the use of the abstract idea (predicting non-barcoded items during checkouts) to a particular technological environment (a self-service terminal or point-of-sale terminal), where these terminals are not recited in any specific technical detail, does not add significantly more similar to how requiring that the abstract idea be performed using a computer merely indicated a field of use in which to apply the judicial exception (buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migdal (US 2022/0277313 A1) in view of Jacobs (US 2002/0194074 A1).
Claim 1 – Migdal discloses a method, comprising:
maintaining a list of predicted item codes for non-barcoded items based on a transaction history of a customer (¶ [0028]; ¶ [0030] “The list of PLU codes that remain after the threshold evaluation are returned back to transaction manager 123 as a pick list.”);
providing a predicted item code obtained from the list of predicted item codes during a current transaction of the customer at a terminal responsive to an indication that the customer is operating a transaction interface of the terminal to locate a potential item code for a current non-barcoded item (¶ [0030] “Transaction manager 123 obtains images associated with each PLU code in the pick list and presents it as options for selection by the operator for the item (produce item pick list).”; FIG. 1B); and
causing the transaction interface to present the predicted item code to the customer as a selectable item code for the current non- barcoded item before the customer performs an item code search within the transaction interface for the potential item code (¶ [0030] “Transaction manager 123 obtains images associated with each PLU code in the pick list and presents it as options for selection by the operator for the item (produce item pick list).”; ¶ [0036] “ In an embodiment, system 100 can be processed along a third workflow associated with the first workflow. This occurs when the operator of terminal 120 requests a pick list for the item, but then enters a PLU code that is not included within the pick list as an option for the operator.”).
Migdal does not disclose limitations associated with maintaining records including transactions for which an item code was manually entered or provided. However, Jacobs – which like Midgal is directed to produce identification – teaches:
wherein maintaining further includes generating a set of historical non-barcoded item transaction records for the customer from a customer's historical transactions (Jacobs ¶ [0058] customer purchase history information), wherein each record includes items processed in the customer's historical transactions for which an item code was manually entered or provided during a current transaction as an indication of a previously purchased non-barcoded item (¶ [0058] “ customer purchase data may be stored in the database 303 reflecting the newly purchased items”), and analyzing the set of historical non-barcoded item transaction records to obtain a variety of metrics and patterns (¶¶ [0058]-[0059] see seasonal buying patterns and determining icons (predicted items) using purchase data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the historical transactions as taught by Jacobs in the method of Migdal because in order to prove the operation and usability of point-of-sale self-checkout systems (Jacobs ¶ [0047]).
Claim 3 – The combination of Migdal in view of Jacobs teaches the method of claim 1. Migdal also discloses, further comprising:
periodically updating the list of predicted item codes at a configured interval of time based on an updated transaction history for the customer (¶ [0028]).
Claim 4 – The combination of Migdal in view of Jacobs teaches the method of claim 1. Migdal also discloses, further comprising:
sorting the list of predicted item codes based on an updated probability assigned to each predicted item codes after the current transaction concludes (see ¶ [0028] for discussion of updated transactions/sales data; ¶ [0029], ¶ [0031] “the list of PLU codes are sorted in ranked order based on the threshold evaluation”).
Claim 6 – The combination of Migdal in view of Jacobs teaches the method of claim 1. Migdal further discloses wherein maintaining further includes sorting the list of predicted item codes based on probabilities assigned to each of the predicted item codes (¶ [0031]).
Claim 8 – The combination of Migdal in view of Jacobs teaches the method of claim 1. Migdal further discloses, wherein providing further includes providing a configurable number of additional predicted item codes from the list of predicted item codes with the predicted item code (¶ [0093] “Or, a top predefined amount or percentage of probabilities are retained, and their PLU codes are used to assemble or generate the pick list”).
Claim 9 – The combination of Migdal in view of Jacobs teaches the method of claim 8. Migdal further discloses, wherein causing further includes causing the transaction interface to present the configurable number of additional predicted item codes as additional selected item codes for the current non-barcoded item (¶ [0093] “For example, any PLU code having probability that exceeds a predefined probability within the list of probabilities returned as outputs from the engines is included in the pick list. Or, a top predefined amount or percentage of probabilities are retained, and their PLU codes are used to assemble or generate the pick list”; ¶ [0094] “At 330A-6, the produce item pick list predictor and verification manager provides the pick list to the transaction terminal in real-time during the transaction”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migdal in view Jacobs, and further in view of Zucker et al. (US 2020/0104594 A1).
Claim 2 – The combination of Migdal in view of Jacobs teaches the method of claim 1. Migdal does not disclose using feedback to improve accuracy metrics, however Zucker et al. – which like Migdal is directed to identifying items during checkout – teaches, further comprising:
receiving an actual item code selected by the customer for the current non-barcoded item as feedback (Zucker ¶ [0025] “For example, the customer may participate and agree to have a mobile application on their device 130 such that the item identifier 121 can interact with the mobile application during the customer shopping and request the customer through a notification to scan a particular item that the customer was detected as picking up, or at the end of shopping ask the customer to verify that all the items noted by the item identifier 121 was properly identified and if not ask the customer to provide the proper identification”); and
using the actual item code to improve accuracy metrics associated with the predicted item codes of the list of predicted item codes (Zucker ¶ [0025] “Furthermore, the machine-learning item predictor 123 can be trained during preconfigured periods of time based on actual item identifications that are known. So, over time the machine-learning item predictor 123 accuracy improves for each item in the store”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the feedback and improvement as taught by Zucker in the method of Migdal in order to improve item identification accuracy over time (Zucker ¶ [0025]).
Claims 5, 7, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migdal in view of Jacobs, and further in view of Molander (US 2017/0046675 A1).
Claim 5 – The combination of Migdal in view of Jacobs teaches he method of claim 1. Migdal does not disclose limitations associated with a loyalty account of the customer, however Molander – which like Migdal is directed to displaying purchase transaction elements according to purchase histories – further teaches:
wherein maintaining further includes linking the list of predicted item codes to a loyalty account of the customer (Molander ¶ [0017] “For example, during a purchase transaction, identifying information for a customer may be received by the purchase transaction manager 102. For example, the customer may interface with the user interface 108 to enter identifying customer identification information, such as by scanning a customer loyalty card. ... The purchase transaction manager 102 may subsequently access a database either remotely or locally to obtain purchase history information for the customer.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the loyalty account as taught by Molander in the method of Migdal because it is desired to provide an improved technique for guiding and selecting items for a purchase transaction (Molander ¶ [0003]).
Claim 7 – The combination of Migdal in view of Jacobs teaches the method of claim 1. Migdal does not disclose limitations associated with a maintaining the list as a table, however Molander further teaches, wherein maintaining further includes maintaining the list of predicted item codes as a table, each row of the table identifies a certain predicted item code, and each column of the table identifies one or more of metric types, pattern types, and image feature types for a model image of a corresponding item (Molander: FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the table as taught by Molander in the method of Migdal because it is desired to provide an improved technique for guiding and selecting items for a purchase transaction (Molander ¶ [0003]).
Claim 10 – The combination of Migdal in view of Jacobs teaches the method of claim 9, however Migdal does not disclose limitations associated with causing the interface to present images for the predicted item code. However Molander further teaches: wherein causing further includes causing the transaction interface to present images and item descriptions for the configurable number of predicted item code and the additional predicted item codes along with the selectable item code and additional selectable item codes (Molander: Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the images as taught by Molander in the method of Migdal because it is desired to provide an improved technique for guiding and selecting items for a purchase transaction (Molander ¶ [0003]).
Claim 11 – Migdal discloses a method, comprising:
generating a data structure that identifies predicted item codes for non-barcoded items purchased by customer (¶ [0028] “Note the store's sales data by PLU code may be retained on cloud 130 and updated periodically to synchronize with transaction/sales data store 144”; ¶ [0063] “The produce item predictor and verifier is implemented as executable instructions programmed and residing within memory and/or a non-transitory computer-readable (processor-readable) storage medium and executed by one or more processors of a device or set of devices.”);
...providing access to the data structure ... to enhance a transaction interface of a terminal during a current transaction of the customer by presenting at least one of the predicted item codes as a selectable option to the customer for a current non-barcoded item (¶ [0094] “At 330A-6, the produce item pick list predictor and verification manager provides the pick list to the transaction terminal in real-time during the transaction”) in addition to an item code searching option provided by the transaction interface (¶ [0096] “During the second workflow (when the item verification request and an entered code is provided with the item image by the transaction terminal), at 330B-1, the produce item pick list predictor and verification manager obtains a particular produce item's sales data that corresponds to an entered item code that accompanied the item verification request”).
Migdal does not disclose limitations associated with a loyalty account of the customer, however Molander further teaches:
integrating access to the data structure into a loyalty account of a loyalty system of the customer (Molander ¶ [0017] “For example, during a purchase transaction, identifying information for a customer may be received by the purchase transaction manager 102. For example, the customer may interface with the user interface 108 to enter identifying customer identification information, such as by scanning a customer loyalty card. ... The purchase transaction manager 102 may subsequently access a database either remotely or locally to obtain purchase history information for the customer.”); and
providing access to the data structure through the loyalty account (Molander ¶ [0017])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the loyalty account as taught by Molander in the method of Migdal because it is desired to provide an improved technique for guiding and selecting items for a purchase transaction (Molander ¶ [0003]).
The combination of Migdal in view of Molander does not teach the following limitations, however Jacobs – which like Midgal is directed to produce identification – teaches:
wherein generating includes identifying each customer using a unique loyalty account or identifier within loyalty data (Jacobs ¶ [0058]), and identifying historical transactions for a corresponding customer from transaction data using a corresponding loyalty account (¶ [0058] after swipe of frequent-shopper card, database is queried to determine the user’s purchase history), and generating a set of historical non-barcoded item transaction records for each customer from a corresponding customer’s historical transactions (¶ [0058] Icons, which represent products see FIG. 34, are determined using the identified user’s historical transactions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the historical transactions as taught by Jacobs in the method of Migdal in view of Molander because in order to prove the operation and usability of point-of-sale self-checkout systems (Jacobs ¶ [0047]).
Claim 12 – The combination of Migdal in view of Molander, and further in view of Jacobs teaches the method of claim 11. Migdal further discloses further comprising:
updating the data structure at predetermined times to account for completed transactions of the customer where any of the non- barcoded items were purchased (¶ [0028] “PLU identification manager 133 obtains sales data from transaction/sales data store 144 of store/retailer server 140. The sales data corresponds to total sales by each PLU code of the retailer. Note the store's sales data by PLU code may be retained on cloud 130 and updated periodically to synchronize with transaction/sales data store 144.”)
Claim 13 – The combination of Migdal in view of Molander, and further in view of Jacobs teaches the method of claim 11. Migdal further discloses wherein generating further includes calculating and deriving metrics and patterns within the data structure for each predicted item code based on a transaction history of the customer (¶ [0029] “Each PLU code is associated with its own trained Bayesian inference machine-learning model (Bayesian produce recognition engine 134). PLU identification manager 133 provides the FV and the corresponding sales data to the corresponding trained Bayesian produce recognition engine 134”).
Claim 14 – The combination of Migdal in view of Molander, and further in view of Jacobs teaches the method of claim 13. Migdal further discloses wherein generating further includes adding image features for a model image of each item associated with a corresponding predicted item code into the data structure (¶ [0030] “Transaction manager 123 obtains images associated with each PLU code in the pick list and presents it as options for selection by the operator for the item (produce item pick list)”).
Claim 15 – The combination of Migdal in view of Molander, and further in view of Jacobs teaches the method of claim 11. Migdal further discloses, wherein generating further includes maintaining a current list of a configured number of the predicted item codes with the data structure (¶ [0093] “At 330A-5, the produce item pick list predictor and verification manager assembles the picklist from the produce items using the probabilities. For example, any PLU code having probability that exceeds a predefined probability within the list of probabilities returned as outputs from the engines is included in the pick list. Or, a top predefined amount or percentage of probabilities are retained, and their PLU codes are used to assemble or generate the pick list).
Claim 16 – The combination of Migdal in view of Molander, and further in view of Jacobs teaches the method of claim 15. Migdal does not disclose a loyalty account, however Molander further teaches wherein integrating further includes updating the current list of the configurable number of the predicted item codes into a field or fields associated with the loyalty account (see Molander ¶ [0017] for discussion of scanning a customer loyalty card to subsequently access purchase history information for the customer, Examiner notes maintaining purchase history for the loyalty account includes updating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the loyalty account as taught by Molander in the method of Migdal because it is desired to provide an improved technique for guiding and selecting items for a purchase transaction (Molander ¶ [0003]).
Claim 17 – The combination of Migdal in view of Molander, and further in view of Jacobs teaches the method of claim 11. Migdal does not disclose a loyalty account, however Molander further teaches wherein integrating further includes updating a link within a field of the loyalty account to the data structure (see Molander ¶ [0017] for discussion of scanning a customer loyalty card to subsequently access purchase history information for the customer, Examiner notes maintaining purchase history for the loyalty account includes updating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the loyalty account as taught by Molander in the method of Migdal because it is desired to provide an improved technique for guiding and selecting items for a purchase transaction (Molander ¶ [0003]).
Claim 18 – The combination of Migdal in view of Molander, and further in view of Jacobs teaches the method of claim 11. Migdal further discloses, wherein integrating further includes providing an application programming interface call to retrieve the data structure (¶ [0024]). Migdal does not disclose limitations associated with a loyalty account, however Molander further teaches: retrieve the data structure using a loyalty identifier for the loyalty account (Molander ¶ [0017] “ For example, the customer may interface with the user interface 108 to enter identifying customer identification information, such as by scanning a customer loyalty card. In another example, the customer may be identified by use of an in-store camera, such as a camera installed in POS equipment or elsewhere. The purchase transaction manager 102 may subsequently access a database either remotely or locally to obtain purchase history information for the customer.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the loyalty account as taught by Molander in the method of Migdal because it is desired to provide an improved technique for guiding and selecting items for a purchase transaction (Molander ¶ [0003]).
Claim 19 – Migdal discloses a system, comprising:
at least one server comprising at least one processor and a non- transitory computer-readable storage medium (¶ [0020]);
the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions (¶ [0020]); and
the executable instructions when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations (¶ [0020]), comprising:
maintaining a data structure comprising predicted item codes for non-barcoded item codes purchased by a customer based on a transaction history of the customer (¶ [0028] “Note the store's sales data by PLU code may be retained on cloud 130 and updated periodically to synchronize with transaction/sales data store 144”; ¶ [0063] “The produce item predictor and verifier is implemented as executable instructions programmed and residing within memory and/or a non-transitory computer-readable (processor-readable) storage medium and executed by one or more processors of a device or set of devices.”);
updating the data structure based on subsequent transactions of the customer (¶ [0028] “PLU identification manager 133 obtains sales data from transaction/sales data store 144 of store/retailer server 140. The sales data corresponds to total sales by each PLU code of the retailer. Note the store's sales data by PLU code may be retained on cloud 130 and updated periodically to synchronize with transaction/sales data store 144.”);
providing access to at least a preconfigured number of the predicted item codes of the data structure ... (¶ [0093] “At 330A-5, the produce item pick list predictor and verification manager assembles the picklist from the produce items using the probabilities. For example, any PLU code having probability that exceeds a predefined probability within the list of probabilities returned as outputs from the engines is included in the pick list. Or, a top predefined amount or percentage of probabilities are retained, and their PLU codes are used to assemble or generate the pick list.”);
providing the at least preconfigured number of the predicted item codes to a transaction interface of a terminal ... during a current transaction of the customer when the customer selects an item code lookup option for a current non- barcoded item (¶ [0041] “In the first workflow, at 151A, PLU identification manager 133 receives a request for a picklist during a transaction at terminal 120.”; ¶ [0047] “At 157A, PLU assistance manager 135 provides the picklist to the transaction terminal 120 for presentation to an operator of terminal 120”; also see ¶ [0093] for preconfigured number of predicted item codes); and
causing the transaction interface to present the at least preconfigured number of the predicted item codes as at least one selectable item code option for the current non-barcoded item without the customer conducting an item code search first through the item code lookup option (see previous citation to ¶ [0047] for picklist presentation; see ¶ [0041] for description of the first workflow; FIG. 1B #151A and #157A).
Migdal does not disclose limitations associated with a loyalty identifier of the customer, however Molander further teaches:
providing access to at least a preconfigured number of the predicted item codes of the data structure using a loyalty identifier of the customer (Molander ¶ [0017] “Based on the purchase history information, the purchase transaction manager 102 may determine that one or more items have been previously purchased by the customer or that one or more items are frequently purchased by the customer.”);
providing the at least preconfigured number of the predicted item codes to a transaction interface of a terminal based on receiving the loyalty identifier during a current transaction of the customer (Molander ¶ [0021] “Continuing the aforementioned example, the purchase transaction manager 102 may determine a display specification for one or more elements based on the determined hierarchy.”; ¶ [0017])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the loyalty account as taught by Molander in the method of Migdal because it is desired to provide an improved technique for guiding and selecting items for a purchase transaction (Molander ¶ [0003]).
The combination of Migdal in view of Molander does not teach the following limitations, however Jacobs – which like Midgal is directed to produce identification – teaches:
wherein maintaining includes generating a set of historical non-barcoded item transaction records for each customer from a corresponding customer’s historical transactions (¶ [0058] Icons, which represent products see FIG. 34, are determined using the identified user’s historical transactions), wherein each record includes items processed in the customer’s historical transactions for which an item code was manually entered or provided during a current transaction as an indication of a previously purchased non-barcoded item (¶¶ [0058]-[0059] “ Thus, for example, during the week before Halloween, icons for purchase of pumpkins may be displayed based on a customers' purchases of pumpkins during that week of the previous year. This information ... may be stored on a customer-specific basis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the historical transactions as taught by Jacobs in the method of Migdal in view of Molander because in order to prove the operation and usability of point-of-sale self-checkout systems (Jacobs ¶ [0047]).
Claim 20 – The combination of Migdal in view of Molander, and further in view of Jacobs teaches the system of claim 19. Migdal further discloses wherein the terminal is a self-service terminal operated by a customer during the current transaction or the terminal is a point-of- sale terminal operated by a cashier for the customer during the current transaction (¶ [0022] “a customer when terminal 120 is a SST and a clerk/cashier when terminal 120 is a POS terminal”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 with respect to the § 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the present claims, like those in Desjardins, recite specific improvements to computer technology through machine learning techniques”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Invoking a computer merely as a tool to improve a fundamental economic or abstract process does not make an otherwise abstract claim non-abstract. In order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. MPEP 2105.05(a).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the independent claims includes mental processes that can practically performed in the human mind, with or without pen and paper. Claim 1 recites:
“maintaining a list of predicted item codes for non-barcoded items based on a transaction history of a customer, wherein maintaining further includes generating a set of historical non- barcoded item transaction records for the customer from a customer's historical transactions, wherein each record includes items processed in the customer's historical transactions for which an item code was manually entered or provided during a current transaction as an indication of a previously purchased non-barcoded item”.
Claim 11 recites:
“generating a data structure that identifies predicted item codes for non-barcoded items purchased by customer, wherein generating includes identifying each customer using a unique loyalty account or identifier within loyalty data, and identifying historical transactions for a corresponding customer from transaction data using a corresponding loyalty account, and generating a set of historical non-barcoded item transaction records for each customer from a corresponding customer's historical transactions”.
Nothing about these limitations requires a computer. A person can maintain the list and generate the data structure, which is embodied in the Specification ¶ [0036] as a list or table, mentally using pen and paper. These limitations also recite sales activity and fundamental economic activity of maintaining lists of item codes and historical transactions (sales data). The claims do not recite any specific technical mechanisms for the maintaining, providing, or presenting of predicted item codes. The only technology recited in the claims is a transaction “interface” of a “terminal”, that presents predicted item codes without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result. Rather than improving computer/software/AI capabilities, these claims invoke computers merely as a tool.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the Examiner evaluated the claims ‘at such a high level of generality’ by characterizing them broadly as ‘predicting’ without analyzing the specific technical mechanisms recited in the claims”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The allegedly “specific technical mechanisms” (i.e., generating historical transaction records that track manual item code entries, analyze these records to obtain metrics and patterns, maintaining customer-specific data structures, and providing predictions before item code searching occurs), are abstract mental processes and sales activities that do not even require a computer. Therefore, these limitations cannot also amount to a specific solutions to software or computer technology.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues the claims recite certain improvements in computer functionality including 1) “Reduced Transaction Processing Time”, 2) “Reduced Storage and Computational Requirements”, 3) “Improved System Accuracy and Reduced Miss-Charging”, 4) “Customer-Specific Optimization”, and 5) “Reduced Queue Delays and Improved Throughput”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the claims do not require a computer and claims that do not require computers cannot recite improvements in computer functionality. Improvement #1, reducing transaction processing time by eliminating the need to search extensive lists of PLU codes, is allegedly achieved by presenting the predicted code before the customer performs an item code search (Remarks, pg. 11). Examiner notes this limitation does not necessarily eliminate the need to then perform an item code search. Nevertheless, the step of “presenting” the predicted item codes before the customer performs an item code search can be achieved mentally with pen & paper. Improvement #5, which is also a business improvements (“backups in the checkout queue”, “transaction throughput”), is similarly credited to the abstract concept of presenting item codes before a search. Reducing the time and steps to a checkout process is a business improvement, not an improvement to functioning of the recited terminal or interface.
The Examiner is not persuaded that the claimed invention reduces computational load by providing predictions “without requiring real-time image processing or complex inference operations during each transaction” (see Improvement 2 on Remarks, pg. 12). The concept of identifying and presenting predicted item codes does not ordinarily require real-time image processing or computers anyway because these are mental processes. Applicant does not give any examples of reduced “complex inference operations”, however reducing inferences performable by the human mind would be abstract activity and not an improvement to the computer or software arts.
In response to improvement #3, Examiner references the previous responses explaining why generating records, as claimed, is abstract mental activity. In response to improvement #4, Examiner notes that benefits provided by identifying customers using loyalty accounts and identifying corresponding historical transactions, where there are no specific technical mechanisms recited for the identifying, is an abstract mental process and sales activity. For at least these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement.
On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the claims are not directed to a field of use or technological environment”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The “specific technical mechanisms” argued (i.e., generating historical transaction records that track manual item code entries, analyze these records to obtain metrics and patterns, maintaining customer-specific data structures, and providing predictions before item code searching occurs) are concepts similar to the abstract idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” in Electric Power Group. Whereas Electric Power Group limits the application of their abstract idea to power-grid monitoring, the instant claims limit their abstract idea of collecting transaction records, analyzing them, and providing predicted results to execution on a generic computer. Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not meaningfully limit the claim.
On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant further argues “the claims recite significantly more than any abstract idea”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims recite abstract mental processes and sales activities in combination with an instruction to implement that abstract activity using a transaction interface of a terminal (“providing ... at a terminal” “causing the transaction interface to present ...”). A human can perform, for example using a written list:
Generating structured historical transaction records
Analyzing records to obtain metrics and patterns
Maintaining customer-specific data structures
Providing predictions before searching occurs.
The claims do not recite any specific technical mechanisms for achieving these results. For example, specific operations performed by Applicant’s terminal or algorithm that cannot be performed mentally.
Applicant further argues the examiner should focus on §§ 102 and 103, not § 101, as made clear by the Director’s guidance (Remarks, pg. 14).
The Desjardins decision does not prohibit § 101 analysis, so the claims are evaluated under all statutory requirements. The § 101 rejection is maintained because the claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite significantly more.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 with respect to the § 102 rejections have been fully considered but they are moot under new grounds of rejections relying on Jacobs (US 2002/0194074 A1) to teach the newly amended limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bukhari, Syed Talha, et al. (NPL Reference U) proposes a system which aims at making the process of check-out at retail store counters faster, autonomous, and more convenient, while reducing dependency on a human operator.
Fano et al. (US 2005/0189415 A1) a method and system is provided for individualized communication for a customer during shopping.
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 KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/K.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights