Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 15, and 16 have been amended and claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined in this reply.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been considered but are not found to be persuasive. Applicant has argued that the claims are not directed towards certain method of organizing human activity and that the claims are focused on conditional processing to identify an item, and provide for a practical application of the before identified abstract idea by improving identifying items that are partially occluded. The Examiner disagrees and asserts that the claims are directed towards the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and provides for the analysis of a practical application in the rejection found below. Applicant further argues that the claims are similar to those found in example 48. The Examiner disagrees, the claims in example 48 are focused on speech separation including applying binary masks to create masked clusters, synthesizing speed waveforms, combining waveforms to generate new mixed speech signals and filtering out the source speech signals. The instant claims are focused on object recognition using a failover identification method. The instant claims do not reflect the fact patterns of example 48. Further, the Examiner would note, that if the claims were structured to positively recite the conditional language of the conditional processing, as well as incorporating the limitations of claim 2, that would be a good direction for overcoming the currently applied 101 rejection, The Examiner invites the Applicant to an interview to further discuss.
Regarding the 103 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are found to be persuasive, therefore the previous 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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.” Claims 1-20 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
In regard to claims 1-20 as indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Representative independent claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method comprising:
receiving from a point of sale (POS) site and at a regional environment, a capture of a physical object, which capture occurred at the POS site, wherein the capture reflects the physical object and a second object that is in physical contact with the physical object but that is not a part of the physical object, such that at least a portion of the physical object is not viewable in the capture due to the second object;
cropping the capture to remove content reflective of the second object, resulting in content reflective of the physical object remaining in the capture while the content reflective of the second object is removed;
identifying the physical object based on the cropped capture, said identifying occurring despite at least the portion of the physical object not being viewable in the capture, wherein identifying the physical object comprises performing a machine learning image inference process, and when the machine learning image inference process does not yield a configurable confidence score, producing a three dimensional model of the physical object using data received as output from an item scanning phase imaging and depth sensing process, wherein identifying the physical object is performed based on the three dimensional model;
automatically labeling any new data generated as a result of the identifying of the physical object; and storing the new data.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “ POS and camera”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “POS and camera”, the above italicized limitations in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite 2 additional elements – “POS and camera”. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “POS and camera” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background and specification does not provide any indication that the “POS and camera” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights