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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and, even viewed as such, are integrated into a practical application and embody an improvement to computer technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is a problem at the abstract layer of organizing human activities, not one borne out of technology. The problems noted in Specification do not highlight any failures of modern computers. These are business implementation problems and do not set forth any deficiencies that are particular to computer capabilities or any other technology. "In sum, 'software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can.' Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. But to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself." Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (emphasis added).
Specifically, measuring the weight and mass of items in the shopping cart is an abstract endeavor. It does not become technological merely by using sensors. The claimed invention does not improve any particular machine or allow one to perform a new function that it was not previously able to do. Instead, it merely chooses one that is properly scaled. This is analogous to, e.g., choosing an appropriately-sized memory when an application requires more storage or a higher-powered processor that is capable of performing faster calculations when those are necessary. It is still using a generic computing element as a tool to perform an abstract function, without setting forth any technological improvements. "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18).
These elements are all abstract and when viewed in combination only amount to applying the abstract idea on generic computers. "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…" MPEP 2106.04(d) II. (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method. Claim 12 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of recommending items based on the remaining shopping cart capacity. This idea is described by the following steps:
A method comprising:
capturing image data depicting one or more obtained items located within the first basket;
measuring load data comprising a measure of weight or mass of the one or more obtained items;
identifying the one or more obtained items within the first basket based on the image data and the load data;
identifying remaining capacity in the first basket based on the image data and the load data;
identifying one or more recommended items by: retrieving historical orders by users at a retailer location, wherein each of the historical orders includes one or more recommended items and the remaining capacity of the smart shopping cart during item recommendation;
scoring each recommended item based on whether the user obtained the recommended item; and
displaying the one or more recommended items.
Claim 12 recites equivalent limitations.
This idea falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas as it is directed towards commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors (i.e., scoring recommended items based on whether the user obtained the recommended items).
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1 and 12 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 1 and 12 recite cameras, a load sensor, one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraphs 147-166) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Claims 1 and 12 additionally recite using a capacity-informed model and item detection model applied to the image data and the load data to identify one or more obtained items within the basket and measure weight or mass. However, the machine-learned models are recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to perform the process (i.e., determining the cost of fulfilling an add-on order offer and determining a conversion rate) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 12 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1 and 12 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 remain allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120284132 to Kim et al. discloses a display device attachable to a shopping cart, and including a communication module configured to receive information on a specific product from a digital device displaying at least one or more products.
In addition to the motion recognition sensor and the camera module, the monitoring module of the shopping cart may further include a weight detection sensor, which compares weight information of a specific product (or item) read out from the barcode of the product by the barcode reader at a first time point (or time point 1) with the change in weight, i.e., the increased weight, from the total weight measured at the first time point (or time point 1). Then, based upon the compared result, if the difference in weight is not within a predetermined difference range, the controller controls the communication module so that the image data captured by the camera module can be transmitted to the server.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 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 A. 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688