DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 46-50, 54-55, and 57-69 are currently pending. The effective filing date of the present application is 9/8/2022. Examiner notes that the restriction requirement was overcome by amendment.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 46-50, 54-55, and 57-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 46-50, 54-55, and are processes (methods), and claims 57-69 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 46 (similarly claims 57 and 64) recites the following bolded abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
46. A method comprising the acts:
receiving a first image frame from a first camera viewing retail checkout including one or more objects(observation) and (i) comparing the first image frame with a corresponding reference image frame to identify one or more regions of contiguous pixels having values in the first image frame that differ from values of spatially-corresponding pixels in the corresponding reference image frame by more than a first threshold amount; and (ii) counting a number of the one or more regions to yield a first count(judgment);
receiving a further image frame from each of one or more additional cameras viewing said retail checkout (observation), and for each further image frame (i) comparing the further image frame with a corresponding reference image frame to identify one or more regions of contiguous pixels having values in the further image frame that differ from values of spatially- corresponding pixels in the corresponding reference image frame by more than a second threshold amount; and (ii) counting a number of the one or more regions to yield a further count (judgement); and
determining a largest count from among said counts (evaluation);
wherein each of the first camera and the one or more additional cameras views the retail checkout along a viewing axis that is non-parallel to the viewing axis of each of the other of the first camera and the one or more additional cameras, and said largest count serves as a count of objects at the retail checkout (opinion).
Claim 46 (similarly claims 57 and 64) is directed to a series of steps for counting pixels to determine the count of objects at a retail checkout, which is a commercial/legal interaction and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or a mental process (see above notations), and/or mathematical processes (counting, comparing the count, differences). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the camera, additional cameras, memory, processor, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See Specification [pg. 4] discussing the multiple types of cameras that could be used. See also MPEP § 2106.05(h) discussing that “merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” Here, the position of the cameras is claiming the environment and not technical; thus, not a technical improvement. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the camera, additional cameras, memory, processor, and non-transitory computer-readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See also MPEP § 2106.05(h) discussing that “merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” Here, the position of the cameras is claiming the environment and not technical; thus, not a technical improvement. Thus, claims 46, 57, and 64 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 47-50, 54-55, 58-63, and 65-69 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner notes that the checkout surface would be technological environment. Therefore, claims 47-50, 54-55, 58-63, and 65-69 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reason for allowable subject matter of claims 46-50, 54-55, and 57-69 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. The claims describe a limitations for identifying a count of regions of contiguous pixels having values in a received image that differ from values of spatially-corresponding pixels in a corresponding reference image, where counts of regions are performed in received images of different cameras with different viewing angles and compared with each others. The nearest art, Holub 2020/0410312 and Davis 2020/0279084, does not teach the overall claimed limitations. Holub teaches the configurations of the cameras but compares the pixels based on a background image characteristics Davis teaches a pixel comparison with imagery captured by conventional or plenoptic cameras to derive several different perspective-transformed views—further minimizing the need to manually reposition items for identification. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant' s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at (571)270-3324. 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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov