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 .
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 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 remain pending, and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/17/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/17/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on page 12 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but to a specific computer-driven processing of digital images in the form of three-dimensional models that produces item records including estimated dimensions, weights, and degree of fragility, and uses those parameters to calculate a moving cost with packing requirements to electronically send an itemized, machine-readable recommendation and item record to a selected local vendor system. The Applicant argues that the claims recite computer vision analysis of images/3D models to derive physical parameters, which cannot be performed by the human mind at the claimed scale. On pages 12-13, the Applicant argues that the claims recite a practical application, and that the recited ordered combination is not well-understood, routine, or conventional, further evidenced as the claims are free of prior art. The Applicant argues that the claimed invention is directed to an improvement in computer functionality and in computer-implemented image analysis for logistics estimation, rather than to an abstract idea performed on a generic computer, the claims reciting a specific sequence of computer-vision operations that analyze digital photographs or 3D models to identify individual items and automatically extract physical characteristics to organize item records having a defined structure, to perform packing-aware moving-cost computations that depend on fragility-specific packing requirements, and allows a computer to transform visual data into structured, machine-usable logistics parameters and downstream instructions. Comparisons are also drawn to Enfish and McRO for claims reciting a specific improvement to how a compute process, organizes, and uses image data.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims only generally recite the receiving of a plurality of images that are a 3D model, and analyzing the 3D model using a trained computer vision model to identify the features of the items. How the 3D models are generated or how the trained computer vision model functions at a technical level are not recited in the claims. These elements are recited in passing as retrieving the information for the abstract idea. The general sending/receiving of information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function as found by the courts, and disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Additionally, the trained computer vision model is merely applied to the abstract idea to produce an output of the abstract information given an input. How the model functions at a technical level is not recited in the claims. The trained computer vision model is a blackbox that merely provides calculations for the abstract idea. Also, according to MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), the courts have indicated examples that may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality, such as accelerating a process when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer. The producing of item records including estimated dimensions, weights, and degree of fragility and using those parameters to calculate a moving cost with packing requirements to send a recommendation and item record to a local vendor system is an abstract idea of estimating moving costs based on information of the identified items, and is unrelated to any technology or technical field. The claims do not recite any underlying technology of the additional elements or any technical process of the additional elements, and merely apply these elements to the abstract idea to automate the moving cost estimation and manual inputs on a computing device using generic computing elements, and does not provide more meaningful limitation beyond providing a general link to a computing environment. The comparisons to Enfish and McRO are also inapposite. In Enfish, the clams were directed to a specific improvement to the ways computer store and retrieve data from memory, and functioned differently than conventional databases. In McRO, there was clearly an improvement to computer-related technology of allowing computer to produce “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animate characters”. The claims did not merely apply specific rules, but the improvement was to the computer’s ability in generating the animated characters. As discussed above, the present claims are not directed to such technical undertakings that change how a computer functions, but merely recites a receiving of a 3D model, and a general application of a generic computer vision model, without any recitation or disclosure to how these elements function at a technical level or any technical improvements to these elements, to retrieve information for the process of the abstract idea.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained 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 claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 9-14 are directed to computer program product comprising a non-transitory tangible storage device, which is an article of manufacture. Claims 15-20 are directed to system, which is an apparatus. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 15 as representative, claim 15 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of determining a cost to move items and determining whether to move or forego the item:
receive a current location and a destination location;
receiving a plurality of images of a living space in the current location;
analyzing the plurality of images to identify one or more items belonging to the user and to extract item-specific visual features comprising size, shape, and condition indicators;
creating an item record, for each of the one or more items, comprising estimated dimensions, weight, and a degree of fragility;
calculating a respective value of the one or more identified items in the plurality of images;
determining a first cost to move the one or more identified items from the current location to the destination location and a second cost to forego moving the one or more identified items and replacing the one or more identified items using an automated cost comparison algorithm, wherein the first cost is calculated based on the estimated dimensions, weight, and packing requirements with respect to the degree of fragility;
responsive to determining that the first cost exceeds the second cost, generating and transmitting a recommendation to forego moving the one or more identified items and replacing the one or more identified items;
responsive to determining that the first cost is less than the second cost, generating and transmitting a recommendation to move the one or more identified items from the current location to the destination location;
transmitting the item record and the recommendation to request contact regarding moving services to a selected local moving vendor system.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for determining a cost to move items and determining whether to move or forego the item. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal interactions (e.g. advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to determining a cost for a service (moving) for items and generating recommendations based on the cost (see specification [0002-0003] disclosing the problem of keeping track of which items to keep or get rid of and knowing the value of the items to reduce the costs of moving), which is a sales and marketing activity.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative Claim 15 does recite additional elements, such as:
one or more computer devices each having one or more processors and one or more tangible storage devices;
a program embodied on at least one or more storage devices;
as a three-dimensional (3D) model;
using a trained computer vision model;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 15 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception as the additional elements merely serve to implement the abstract idea in a computing environment.
Furthermore, this is also 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 a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While there is recitation of one or more computer devices and storage devices, these elements are recited with a very high level of generality, and is only recited as performing the steps of the abstract idea. Specification paragraph [0021] and [0037] discloses the devices may take the form of a desktop computer, laptop computer, smart phone, or any other form of computer or mobile device now known. The storage device is disclosed in paragraph [0018] as any tangible device that can retain and store instructions. As such, it is evident that these elements are any generic elements that are merely applied to the abstract idea to provide a general link to a computing environment. The computer vision analysis is also disclosed with a very high level of generality. The computer vision analysis is disclosed in specification paragraph [0058-0059] as using AI technology to mimic the capabilities of the human brain for object recognition and object classification. However, there is no further detail regarding the computer vision analysis, such as the underlying technology of how the computer vision analysis works. The claims merely apply it to provide a data output from the images without any further detail, essentially acting as a black box that is input with data and outputs an analysis.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 15 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to claim 15, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 15 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in representative claim 15 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. 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 ultimately 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.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 15 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 15 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 1 (method): Claim 1 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 15 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 1 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 15.
Regarding Claim 9 (computer program product comprising a non-transitory tangible storage device): Claim 9 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 15 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 9 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 15.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 15, such as by further defining the algorithm for determining a cost to move items and determining whether to move or forego the item. Thus, each of claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 11. Further additional elements are also acknowledged (e.g. e-commerce sites (claim 3)); however, the additional elements of claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are recited only 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 the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims 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) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 15. Thus, dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The claims are free of the prior art for the reasons as indicated in the previous Office Action mailed on 3/6/2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 6/5/2026
Prosecution Insights