DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on March 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 and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 5, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 14 have been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 103 prior art 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:
Amended independent claims 1 and 14 are not directed to mental processes.
Examiner’s Response: Not being able to perform something manually or in the human mind is not enough to confer eligibility or show an improvement to the computer or the technology. Merely using known technology to replace or automate human work is not enough to confer eligibility. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept such as customer’s analytics) 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. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
Moreover, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. 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"). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Amended independent claims 1 and 14 are not directed to methods of organizing a human activity.
Examiner’s Response: The claims are directed to customer’s analytics which is a fundamental economic practice associated with a commercial interaction (sales). The invention is merely using known technology (RFID system, a camera, a purchase terminal and a processor) performing ordinary functions for collecting and processing information. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. The invention is a conventional computerized implementation of customer’s analytics in the general field of business management. The computers are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no new technology or any technological improvement involved.
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 1-20 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 Claims 1 and 14, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of customer’s analytics which is a fundamental economic practice associated with a commercial interaction (sales). The claims recite collecting and associating information which is a mental process (observation/evaluation). The limitations on recording a location, collecting data, receiving location/identification information, receiving information regarding a purchase and associating information could be all performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. Other than reciting an RF tag, antenna, a camera and a processor nothing in the claim precludes the steps for being performed in the human mind and/or the help of paper and pencil. All the steps of “record”, “collect”, “receive” and “associate” recite functions directed to sales activities and commercial interactions. 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. Generic computer components performing generic computer functions alone, do not amount to significantly more that an 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. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claims modified by adding generic computer elements would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's customer analytics in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. 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 computers to perform the recording, collecting, receiving and associating 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. There are no improvements to technology or any new technology involved. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-13 and 15-20, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components, the 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2019/0362135) A1 in view of Clements (US 2012/0127314 A1).
Claim 1
Chan discloses the following limitations:
A system for collecting demographic information and associating the demographic information with a purchase by a consumer, the system comprising:
RF tag having identification information associated with the purchase by the consumer at the time of the purchase and configured to move in unison with the consumer after the purchase of the product by the consumer; (see at least paragraphs 0029-RFID tags on each product to detect the movement of the product though the store; paragraphs 0030-0033-customers may have membership cards that include RFID tags that can be read by the RFID sensors; the person can be detected by using cameras and the presence of an item on the person can be detected using RFID sensors, cameras or other type of sensors; paragraph 0035-detecting the person leaving the store and identifying items in possession of the person. The system charges the person for items in their possession).
a first RF antenna configured to record a location of the RF tag via wireless electronic reception of the identification information from the RF tag in response to the RF tag being within range of the first RF antenna; (see at least figure 1-RFID system to track products and customers).
a camera configured to collected video data including the consumer simultaneous with the recordation of the location of the RF tag by the first RF antenna; (see at least paragraphs 0030-0033- the person can be detected by using cameras and the presence of an item on the person can be detected using RFID sensors, cameras or other type of sensors).
a computer processor configured to receive, from the first RF antenna via the RF tag, location information of the product and the identification information associated with the purchase (see at least paragraphs 0030-0033-customers may have membership cards that include RFID tags that can be read by the RFID sensors; the person can be detected by using cameras and the presence of an item on the person can be detected using RFID sensors, cameras or other type of sensors; 0035-the system charges the person for items in their possession).
receive information regarding the purchase, and receive video data from the camera, the computer processor configured to associate the RF tag with the identification information regarding the purchase (see at least paragraphs 0030-0033-customers may have membership cards that include RFID tags that can be read by the RFID sensors; the person can be detected by using cameras and the presence of an item on the person can be detected using RFID sensors, cameras or other type of sensors; 0035-the system charges the person for items in their possession).
Chan does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however Clements does:
and configured to determine demographic information of the consumer from the video data and associate the demographic information with the identification information regarding the purchase (see at least paragraphs 0023 and 0043-demographic analysis of the customer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Chan and Clements in order to provide useful information for inventory management (Clements paragraphs 0043-0044). 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, Chan discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: a purchase terminal at which the purchase is made by the consumer and at which the identification information of the RF tag is associated with information regarding the purchase. (see at least paragraphs 0030-0031 and 0035).
Claim 3
Furthermore, Chan discloses the following limitations:
further comprising:
a second RF antenna at the purchase terminal that associates the identification information of the RF tag with the information regarding the purchase. (see at least figure 1-RFID system to track products and customers).
Claim 4
Furthermore, Chan discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: a second RF antenna in communication with the computer processor and configured to send the identification information of the RF tag and the information regarding the purchase to the computer processor. (see at least figure 1-RFID system to track products and customers; paragraphs 0030-0033-customers may have membership cards that include RFID tags that can be read by the RFID sensors; the person can be detected by using cameras and the presence of an item on the person can be detected using RFID sensors, cameras or other type of sensors; 0035-the system charges the person for items in their possession).
Claim 5
Furthermore, Chan discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: a retail store within which the first RF antenna and the camera are located. (see at least abstract and figure 2).
Claim 6
Furthermore, Chan discloses the following limitations:
wherein the camera collects video data of the consumer within an entrance/exit zone adjacent a door of the retail store (see at least paragraphs 0028 and 0030).
Claim 7
Furthermore, Chan discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first RF antenna is configured to record the location of the RF tag when the RF tag is within the entrance/exit zone (see at least abstract, figure 2 and paragraphs 0028-0029).
Claim 8
Furthermore, Chan discloses the following limitations:
wherein the RF tag is affixed to the product that is the focus of the purchase (see at least paragraph 0029).
Claim 9
Furthermore, Clements discloses the following limitations:
wherein the RF tag is affixed to a physical receipt for the purchase. (see at least paragraphs 0026, 0044 and 0046-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Chan and Clements in order to provide useful information for inventory management (Clements paragraphs 0043-0044). 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 10
Furthermore, Clements discloses the following limitations:
wherein the RF tag is associated with a bag in which the product that is the focus of the purchase is located. (see at least paragraphs 0026, 0044 and 0046-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Chan and Clements in order to provide useful information for inventory management (Clements paragraphs 0043-0044). 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 11
Furthermore, Clements discloses the following limitations:
wherein the computer processor uses computer vision to determine the demographic information (see at least paragraphs 0023 and 0043-demographic analysis of the customer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Chan and Clements in order to provide useful information for inventory management (Clements paragraphs 0043-0044). 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 12
Furthermore, Chan discloses the following limitations:
wherein the computer processor is a separate component from and is in electronic communication with each of the first RF antenna and the camera. (see at least figures 1-2).
Claim 13
Furthermore, Clements discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: a database in communication with the computer processor, the database storing the information regarding the consumer, the information regarding the purchase, and the demographic information. (see at least paragraphs 0023 and 0043-demographic analysis of the customer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Chan and Clements in order to provide useful information for inventory management (Clements paragraphs 0043-0044). 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 15
Furthermore, Clements discloses the following limitations:
further comprising:
a database in communication with the first computer processor and the second computer processor, the database including the demographic information of the first consumer and the second consumer and information regarding the first purchase and the second purchase, respectively. (see at least paragraphs 0023 and 0043-demographic analysis of the customer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Chan and Clements in order to provide useful information for inventory management (Clements paragraphs 0043-0044). 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 16
Furthermore, Chan discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first computer processor and the second computer processor are incorporated into one component (see at least figures 1-2).
Claim 17
Furthermore, Chan discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first retail store further comprises: a first purchase terminal at which the first product is purchased by the first consumer and at which the first RF tag is associated with information regarding the first purchase (see at least paragraph 0035).
Claim 18
Furthermore, Chan discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first purchase terminal conveys information regarding the first consumer to the first computer processor and the first computer processor associates the information regarding the first consumer with the information regarding the first purchase. (see at least paragraphs 0030-0031 and 0035).
Claim 19
Furthermore, Chan discloses the following limitations:
wherein the information regarding the first consumer includes at least one of a name of the first consumer, contact information of the first consumer, and purchase history of the first consumer. (see at least paragraph 0030).
Claim 20
Furthermore, Chan discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first computer processor is not at a location of the first retail store and the second computer processor is not at a location of the second retail store (see at least paragraph 0050).
As per claim 14, claim 14 recite substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
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