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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply dated 12/19/2025, claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 14, and 19 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 abstract subject matter and further provide for a practical application of the before identified abstract idea. 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.
Regarding the 103 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are found to be persuasive in part, however are moot in view of new grounds of rejection found below.
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;
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.
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 1, 2-5, 10-11, 13-15, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0046161 A1 to Whitelaw (“Whitelaw”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0414398 A1 to Krishnamurthy (“Krish”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0190903 A1 to Singh (“Singh”), in view of United States Patent No. 10,133,933 B1 to Fisher (“Fisher”).
In regards to claims 1 and 11, Whitelaw discloses the following limitations:
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 rejects the physical object, identifying the physical object (Whitelaw discloses a system and method of scanning an item at a POS, using the resulting information to both identify and train a CV model used for identifying the object, where the information can be used locally to run the CV model or transmitted to a remote service which runs the CV model. See at least Abstract Fig. 6 and 7, and ¶ 0055)
Whitelaw discloses using the images taken to update the model (see at least ¶¶ 0055 and 0075), however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
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;
Based on the cropped capture, said identifying occurring despite at least the portion of the physical object not being viewable in the capture;
automatically labeling any new data generated as a result of the identifying of the physical object; and storing the new data.
The Examiner provides Krish to teach the following limitations:
automatically labeling any new data generated as a result of the identifying of the physical object; and storing the new data. (Krish teaches a similar system and method of model to identify objects at a checkout, including automatically labeling new data from images and storing/updating the model/data. See at least Krish Abstract and ¶ 0027)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Whitelaw the teachings of Krish since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
The Examiner provides Singh to teach the following limitations:
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; Based on the cropped capture, said identifying occurring despite at least the portion of the physical object not being viewable in the capture; (Singh discloses a system and method of processing images to determine item/objects in the image by cropping the image to include only the region of interest or object for identification. See at least ¶¶ 0054, 0056, and 0061 “the imaging assembly 30 can include one or more processors (not shown) to process the image data or datasets captured, scanned, or sensed by the imaging assembly 30 by localizing (e.g., identifying and cropping) an object 104 included within the image data. The processing of the image data may generate post-imaging data that may include metadata, simplified data, normalized data, result data, status data, or alert data as determined from the original scanned or sensed image data. The image data and/or the post-imaging data may be sent to the database 207 or a cloud-based server for further processing, viewing, manipulation, and/or otherwise interaction. In other embodiments, the image data and/or the post-imaging data may be sent to a server for storage or for further manipulation.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Whitelaw the teachings of Singh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
The Examiner provides Fisher to teach the following limitations:
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; (Fisher teaches a system and method of using a trained model to identify bounding boxes for items (hands holding items) that are in physical contact with each other and using the separated data to identify the item or items held by the hands. See at least Figure 15A-25 and ¶¶ 135-136, 154-164)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Whitelaw the teachings of Fisher since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 3 and 13, Whitelaw discloses the following limitations:
wherein the POS site is an edge site in an edge network. (Whitelaw discloses the edge POS site where users perform a checkout/item recognition process. See at least Abstract, Figures 1 and 6-7, and ¶¶ 0040-0042)
In regards to claims 4 and 14, Whitelaw discloses the following limitations:
wherein the capture comprises any one or more of two-dimensional images, video, item depth information, and inventory data. (Whitelaw discloses obtaining information about the item such as 2D images, depth information, 3d images, inventory data (product identifiers etc). see at least Whitelaw ¶¶ 0063-0065)
In regards to claims 5 and 15, Whitelaw discloses the following limitations:
wherein identifying the physical object is performed with an inferencing process of a machine learning model, and the physical object is only considered as having been identified when a probability that the inferencing process has correctly identified the physical object meets or exceeds a confidence level. (Whitelaw discloses using confidence levels to correctly identify an item. See at least ¶¶ 0055, 0063, and 0071)
In regards to claims 10 and 20, Whitelaw discloses the following limitations:
wherein the POS site is a self-checkout kiosk. (see at least Whitelaw ¶ 0024)
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0046161 A1 to Whitelaw (“Whitelaw”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0414398 A1 to Krishnamurthy (“Krish”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0190903 A1 to Singh (“Singh”), in view of United States Patent No. 10,133,933 B1 to Fisher (“Fisher”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0142127 A1 to Lee (“Lee”)
In regards to claims 2 and 12, Whitelaw discloses multiple types of cameras/scanners however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the physical object is scanned using an RGB-D camera.
The Examiner provides Lee to teach the following limitations:
wherein the physical object is scanned using an RGB-D camera. (Lee teaches a similar system and method of item identification including using an RGB-D camera to image the item. See at least ¶ 0173)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Whitelaw the teachings of Lee since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0046161 A1 to Whitelaw (“Whitelaw”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0414398 A1 to Krishnamurthy (“Krish”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0190903 A1 to Singh (“Singh”), in view of United States Patent No. 10,133,933 B1 to Fisher (“Fisher”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0236362 A1 to Srivastava (“Sriv”)
In regards to claims 6 and 16, Whitelaw discloses taking and using 3d images of items for use in identifying items including 3d point clouds(see above citations), however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the identifying of the physical object is performed based on a three dimensional model of the physical object, and the three dimensional model is constructed based on the information obtained as a result of the scanning process.
The Examiner provides Sriv to teach the following limitations:
wherein the identifying of the physical object is performed based on a three dimensional model of the physical object, and the three dimensional model is constructed based on the information obtained as a result of the scanning process. (Sriv teaches a similar system and method of item identification including creating and using 3D models of objects to recognize and identify the target item. See at least Abstract and ¶¶ 0042, 0099)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Whitelaw the teachings of Sriv since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0046161 A1 to Whitelaw (“Whitelaw”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0414398 A1 to Krishnamurthy (“Krish”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0190903 A1 to Singh (“Singh”), in view of United States Patent No. 10,133,933 B1 to Fisher (“Fisher”), in view of United States Patent No. 11,893,692 B1 to Baize (“Baize”)
In regards to claims 7 and 17, Whitelaw discloses comparing scanned items to reference items, and determining which information is used to identify the item, such as updating the reference images with the scanned images etc. including 3d images and point clouds (see above citations), however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein a mesh comparison process is used to determine which of two three-dimensional models will be used to identify the physical object.
The Examiner provides Baize to teach the following limitations:
wherein a mesh comparison process is used to determine which of two three-dimensional models will be used to identify the physical object. (Baize teaches a mesh comparison process to update and improve stored models of items, see at least Abstract and Figure 3)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Whitelaw the teachings of Baize in order to update and select the best 3d model for identifying the items, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 8 and 18, Whitelaw discloses the following limitations:
wherein a first one of the three dimensional models is captured during an inventory three dimensional modeling phase, and the second one of the three dimensional models is based on the information obtained from the scanning process, (Whitelaw discloses both a trained data set and updating the trained dataset including 3d images and point clouds for identifying items. See at least Abstract Fig. 6 and 7, and ¶¶ 0055, 0057,and 0075)
Whitelaw discloses comparing scanned items to reference items, and determining which information is used to identify the item, such as updating the reference images with the scanned images etc. including 3d images and point clouds (see above citations), however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
and the first one and the second one of the three dimensional models are each associated with a respective mesh that are compared with each other as part of the mesh comparison process.
The Examiner provides Baize to teach the following limitations:
and the first one and the second one of the three dimensional models are each associated with a respective mesh that are compared with each other as part of the mesh comparison process. (Baize teaches a mesh comparison process to update and improve stored models of items, see at least Abstract and Figure 3)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Whitelaw the teachings of Baize in order to update and select the best 3d model for identifying the items, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0046161 A1 to Whitelaw (“Whitelaw”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0414398 A1 to Krishnamurthy (“Krish”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0190903 A1 to Singh (“Singh”), in view of United States Patent No. 10,133,933 B1 to Fisher (“Fisher”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0242503 A1 to Musiani (“Musiani”)
In regards to claims 9 and 19, Whitelaw discloses accurately identifying items which would reduce the possibility of fraud, however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the capture is used to determine whether a fraudulent transaction has occurred at the POS.
The Examiner provides Musiani to teach the following limitations:
wherein the capture is used to determine whether a fraudulent transaction has occurred at the POS. (Musiani teaches a system and method of item identification and fraud prevention at a POS, by using scanned information of items at the checkout and other techniques, the system and can determine if a fraudulent action has occurred. See at least Abstract, ¶¶ 0019-0020, 0100, 0106)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Whitelaw the teachings of Musiani in order to help prevent fraudulent actions at a checkout, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights