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 01/29/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 01/29/2024 has been reviewed and considered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(a) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 teach the novel and non-obvious features of detecting, via a first electronic application operating on a device, that a second electronic application operating on the device, separate from the first electronic application, is accessing the camera of the device to observe an item identifier of a physical item to be added to a collection of physical items.
The following references have been identified as the most relevant prior art to the claimed invention: Goetz et al. (US 11,526,921 B1); Maney et al. (US 12,154,167 B1); Ganjoo (US 9,633,385 B1); and Pamphile et al. (US 2025/0100607 A1). These reference disclose or render obvious extracting, via the first electronic application, the item identifier from imaging data captured by the camera; determining, via the first electronic application, a value of the physical item based on the extracted item identifier; determining, via the first electronic application, a total value of the collection of physical items based on the determined value of the physical item; generating, via the first electronic application, at least one status assessment of a user associated with the device based on the total value of the collection of physical
items; and executing, via the first electronic application, at least one action based on the at least one status assessment of the user. However, they do not teach or suggest: detecting, via a first electronic application operating on a device, that a second electronic application operating on the device, separate from the first electronic application, is accessing the camera of the device to observe an item identifier of a physical item to be added to a collection of physical items.
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 1-19 are directed to methods and claim 20 is directed to a device. Claims 1, 11, and 20 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, as exemplary, recites abstract concepts including: accessing one or more of location data; identifying an entity associated with the one or more of the location data; ... observe an item identified of a physical item to be added to a collection of physical items; extracting ... the item identifier from imaging data; determining ... a value of the physical item based on the extracted item identifier ... the identifying the value of the physical item based on the extracted item identifier; determining ... a total value of the collection of physical items based on the determined value of the physical item; generating ... at least one status assessment of the user based on the total value of the collection of physical items; and executing ... at least one action based on the at least one status assessment of the user.
These identified limitations recite the abstract idea of “determining item values based on item identifiers and executing corresponding actions ”, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it sets forth and describes managing personal behavior of using the determined value of collected items to execute actions such as recommending removal or exchange of items in the collection. Each of the identified steps above also recite mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind including observations (e.g. identifying an entity associated with location data) and evaluations (e.g. determining values and generating a status assessment of the user). Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
In Step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Instant claims 1, 11, and 20 recite additional elements including: a computer; a camera; a positioning sensor on a user device or a network connection data of the user device; a first electronic application operating on a device; a second electronic application operating on a device; detecting, via a first electronic application operating on a device, that a second electronic application operating on the device, separate from the first electronic application, is assessing a camera of the device; and accessing a database of values of items at the identified entity.
The computer, camera, positioning sensor on a user device, first and second electronic applications, and database are recited at a high-level of generality in combination with the identified abstract limitations such that they amount to no more than “apply it” or mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two 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. The step of “accessing one or more of location data of a positioning sensor on a user device or network connection data of the user device” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea (in this case, execution on a generic computer), which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, step of “detecting, via a first electronic application operating on the user device, that a second electronic application operating on the user device ... is accessing the camera” contains no restriction on how the detecting is performed by the first electronic application and no mechanism for accomplishing the result. Accordingly, this step also amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer because claiming only the idea of a solution or outcome is equivalent to “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In combination, the additional elements amount to no more than a generic smartphone being applied to perform the abstract idea. Consequently, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. Claims 1, 11, and 20 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. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea with a generic computer does not add significantly more in Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus claims 1, 11, and 20 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 12 recite additional elements including: wherein the extracting of the item identifier from imaging data captured by the camera is performed so as to be opaque to the second electronic application. Similar to the additional elements identified above, the “extracting” described in ordinary terms, contains no restriction/mechanism for “extracting ... so as to be opaque to the second electronic application”, and therefore amounts to no more than “apply it”. Accordingly, claim(s) 2 and 12 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3-10 and 13-19 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea without reciting any further additional elements, not already addressed above. Thus dependent claims 3-10 and 13-19 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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.
Claim 1, 11, and 20 recite “detecting, via a first electronic application operating on a device, that a second electronic application operating on the device, separate from the first electronic application, is accessing the camera of the device to observe an item identifier of a physical item to be added to a collection of physical items”. Claims 2 and 12 recite, “wherein the extracting of the item identifier from imaging data captured by the camera is performed so as to be opaque to the second electronic application”. However, the specification fails to describe the invention in sufficient detail to demonstrate possession of these capabilities.
A claim lacks written support when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Specification merely restates the desired outcomes (functional language) recited in the claims, without disclosing any corresponding means/mechanism/algorithm by which such detection and extraction are performed – raising questions as to whether Application truly had possession of these features at the time of filing. For example, the Specification does not identify any software architecture, operating system, or security privileges that would allow an electronic application to detect the recited camera access of another separate electronic application. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Botella (US 2020/0126151 A1) relates to systems and methods for providing real time budget tracking and monitoring, and more particularly for tracking a user's purchases, notifying the user during the authorization of a purchase that would cause the use to go over budget, and prompting the user with to determine whether or not to proceed with the transaction.
Whitman et al. (US 2023/0099927 A1) relates to using artificial intelligence to determine whether a product meets a user's multi-factor requirements, and notifying the user of the same, for example, by a notification or list of recommended alternative products.
“Maximizing Nutrition Requirements and Budgetary Constraints While Leveraging the Buying Experience” (NPL Reference U) combines budget and nutritional information to monitor the shopper’s selections in comparison to the user’s restrictions, and then provides an alert when the user selects items that exceed the configured budget threshold or does not meet designated nutritional standards.
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