DETAILED ACTION
Claims 28-29 and 31-36 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 21-27 and 30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/11/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 28-29 and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “reliably enough” in claim 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reliably enough” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 31 and 34 reiterate this limitation. Claims 29 and 31-36 depend from claim 28 and inherit the same deficiency.
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 28-29 and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 28-29 and 31-36, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 28-29 and 31-36 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 28 as representative, claim 28 recites: A scan box for attachment to a shopping cart or a picking cart, comprising: an operational tablet computer with I/O interfaces for recording image data of the shopping cart by the camera mounted on the shopping cart, I/O interfaces for sensor data provided by sensors on the shopping cart, a memory that stores for storing code sections in a non-transitory manner and a logic unit for executing the code sections to carry out a method when the code sections are loaded for execution, the method comprising: a) permanent recording of image data of the shopping cart by a camera mounted on the shopping cart, b) registering placement of a product into the shopping cart by automated evaluation of sensor data provided by the sensors on the shopping cart, the sensor data including weight measurement data from a weighing system, c) carrying out an automated control process to determine whether the product has been recognized reliably enough, d) performing an automated confidence assessment according to which a product is not considered to be recognized reliably enough based on confidence data for the respective product recognition that includes evaluating predefined confidence ranges for the placed product by comparing the weight measurement data with a predefined target weight of the product, and e) recognizing the product based on a product type-specific aspect with a probability measure, and the type of product identified by automated image recognition using the image data.
The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to recognize a product (Specification p. 1). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 28 recites additional elements, including a scan box, a shopping cart, an operational tablet computer, I/O interfaces, sensors, a camera, and a memory.
These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 28 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 28 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate 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). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 28 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. MPEP 2106.05.
In view of the above, representative claim 28 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 29 and 31-36 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 28. Thus, each of claims 29 and 31-36 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 29 and 31-36 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 29 and 31-36 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 29 and 31-36 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
In view of the above, claims 28-29 and 31-36 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 28-29 and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al., US PG Pub 2019/0355049 A1 (hereafter “Kulkarni”), in view of Bronicki et al., US PG Pub 2021/0374836 A1 (hereafter “Bronicki”).
Regarding claim 28, Kulkarni teaches a scan box for attachment to a shopping cart or a picking cart (¶¶0016-0019), comprising:
an operational tablet computer with I/O interfaces for recording image data of the shopping cart by the camera mounted on the shopping cart, I/O interfaces for sensor data provided by sensors on the shopping cart, a memory that stores for storing code sections in a non-transitory manner and a logic unit for executing the code sections to carry out a method when the code sections are loaded for execution (Figure 2, ¶¶0011 and 0016-0025), the method comprising:
a) permanent recording of image data of the shopping cart by a camera mounted on the shopping cart (¶¶0016, 0022, and 0028),
b) registering placement of a product into the shopping cart by automated evaluation of sensor data provided by the sensors on the shopping cart, the sensor data including weight measurement data from a weighing system (¶¶0015-0016 and 0022),
c) carrying out an automated control process to determine whether the product has been recognized reliably enough (¶¶0014-0016, 0019-0021, 0028, 0031-0034, and 0037),
d) performing an automated confidence assessment according to which a product is not considered to be recognized reliably enough based on confidence data for the respective product recognition that includes evaluating predefined confidence ranges for the placed product by comparing the weight measurement data with a predefined target weight of the product (¶¶0015-0016), and
e) recognizing the product based on a product type-specific aspect with a probability measure, and the type of product identified by automated image recognition using the image data (¶¶0014, 0028, and 0037).
Kulkarni does not teach evaluating predefined confidence ranges, a predefined target weight, or a product type-specific aspect with a probability measure and the type of product. Bronicki teaches new ways for monitoring retail establishments using image processing and supporting sensors including the known techniques for evaluating predefined confidence ranges (¶¶0110-0111), a predefined target weight (¶¶0186, 0205-0210, 0293, 0307-0313, 0331, and 0346), and a product type-specific aspect with a probability measure and the type of product (¶¶0109-0111, 0138, 0190, 0225, 0246, 0283, 0346, and 0356). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kulkarni, to include the above known techniques as taught by Bronicki, in order to “increase productivity,” and “to provide a dynamic solution that will automatically monitor retail spaces,” as suggested by Bronicki (¶0003).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Bronicki, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 29, Kulkarni in view of Bronicki teaches a digital shopping cart or picking cart with the scan box according to claim 28 (Kulkarni ¶¶0016-0017).
Regarding claim 31, Kulkarni in view of Bronicki teaches the scan box of claim 28, wherein the method further comprises, obtaining a copy of the recorded image data from a period of time of a specified length, which shows the registered placement process, if the control process shows that a product has not been recognized or has not been recognized reliably enough, and creating a marking for the products that were not recognized or were not recognized reliably enough in a digital products list that represents the products placed in the shopping cart (Bronicki ¶¶0144, 0168, 0228, 0243, 0276, and 0500). The combination would have been obvious for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 28.
Regarding claim 32, Kulkarni in view of Bronicki teaches the scan box of claim 28, wherein the weighing system measures an increase in weight caused by the placement of a product (Kulkani ¶0015).
Regarding claim 33, Kulkarni in view of Bronicki teaches the scan box of claim 28, wherein the image data is stored in a rolling manner during a time window of a predetermined length and previously existing image data is overwritten (Bronicki ¶¶0139, 0157-0159, and 0176-0179). The combination would have been obvious for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 28.
Regarding claim 34, Kulkarni in view of Bronicki teaches the scan box of claim 28, wherein the actual weight of the product is stored separately in a products database if it has been recognized reliably enough (Bronicki ¶¶0117-0118, 0128, 0240, 0441, and 0484). The combination would have been obvious for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 28.
Regarding claim 35, Kulkarni in view of Bronicki teaches the scan box of claim 28, wherein the method further comprises, automated checking of the products list for the presence of products marked in the products list, if a marked product is encountered, playing back the separately stored copy of the image data from a period of time of a specified length, which shows the placement process of the product into the shopping cart, and offering a user interface for separately re-recognizing the marked product (Bronicki ¶¶0146-0147, 0157, 0173-0179, 0225-0228, 0234-0236, 0252-0255, and 0377-0378). The combination would have been obvious for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 28.
Regarding claim 36, Kulkarni in view of Bronicki teaches the scan box of claim 28, wherein the shopping cart is a picking cart, and the digital list of products is a picking list (Bronicki ¶¶0119 and 0229-0230). The combination would have been obvious for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 28.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamaguchi, US PG Pub 2022/0405759 A1, teaches a sales management system.
Crooks, US PG Pub 2021/0097514 A1, teaches produce identification, weight, and checkout verification processing.
Non-patent literature Gangwal, Udita, Sanchita Roy, and Jyotsna Bapat, teaches a smart shopping cart for automated billing purpose using wireless sensor networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights