DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to response to amendment and response filed on 1/27/26. Claims 12-17 and 29 were amended. Claims 12-17 and 21-31 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot because amendments that are substantive. Per example, claim 12 amendments recite additional elements (e.g.: ”transmit the incident report to a user mobile device associated with the user”) which necessitate reconsideration of the claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims
102/103: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot because amendments that are substantive. Per example, claim 12 amendments recite new limitations (e.g.: “identify the user based on the indication associated with the asset conversion failure incident”) that necessitate an updated search and reconsideration of the claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
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 12-17 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite an apparatus (claims 12-17) and a process (claims 21-31). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 12 (from claims 12, 21 and 29) is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of asset recovery transaction, as are all a form of commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
An apparatus for asset recovery in association with a self-service retail market environment, the apparatus comprising:
a memory;
a processor coupled with the memory and configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive an indication associated with an asset conversion failure incident, the asset conversion failure incident comprising a failure of a user of the self-service retail market environment to complete a transaction for a retrieved inventory asset prior to leaving a vicinity of the self-service retail market;
identify the user based on the indication associated with the asset conversion failure incident;
generate an incident report corresponding to the asset conversion failure incident, the incident report comprising an asset recovery mechanism associated with an asset recovery operation; and
transmit the incident report to a user mobile device associated with the user.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“An apparatus […], the apparatus comprising”, “a memory”, “a processor coupled with the memory and configured to cause the apparatus to”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “apparatus”, “memory” and “processor coupled with the memory and configured to cause the apparatus” are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and are claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
“transmit the incident report to a user mobile device associated with the user”. This is no more than “apply it” as “transmit the incident report to a user mobile device associated with the user” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of asset recovery transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 13 recites “ generate, based on sensing data, output information indicative of an identification of the user” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“sensing [data]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “sensing” is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). This is general linking as the “sensing” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of asset recovery transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 14 recites “wherein the indication associated with the asset conversion failure incident comprises an image depicting the user” and “wherein the processor, to cause the apparatus to identify the user, perform facial recognition on the image to identify the user” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“perform facial recognition on the image to identify the user”. This is no more than “apply it” as “perform facial recognition on the image to identify the user” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of asset recovery transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 15 recites “wherein the asset recovery mechanism comprises a selectable representation configured to initiate a transaction for the retrieved inventory asset” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“a selectable representation configured”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “selectable representation” is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). This is general linking as the “selectable representation” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of asset recovery transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 16 recites “wherein the processor, to cause the apparatus to identify the user, is configured to cause the apparatus to”, “receive, from a sensing device, user identification information” and “identify the user based on the user identification information” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“from a sensing device”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “sensing device” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). This is general linking as the “sensing device” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of asset recovery transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 17 recites additional elements of:
“transmit the incident report to a management system associated with the self-service retail market environment”. This is no more than “apply it” as “transmit the incident report to a management system associated with the self-service retail market environment” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of asset recovery transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 24 recites “receiving a communication from an asset transaction control device, wherein the communication comprises the indication” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“an asset transaction control device”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “asset transaction control device” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of asset recovery transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 26 recites “receiving an operator input via an operator device, wherein the operator input is indicative of the time period” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“via an operator device”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “operator device” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of asset recovery transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 30 recites “wherein the processor, to cause the apparatus to identify the user, is configured to cause the apparatus to”, “receive user identification information” and “identify the user based on the user identification information and a user database comprising a user record associated with the user” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“a user database comprising”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “user database” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of asset recovery transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 31 recites “wherein the user identification information is associated with at least one of a user payment card, a user access device, or the user mobile device” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“a user access device”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “user access device” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of asset recovery transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 22-23, 25 and 27-28 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-17, 21-26 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180232796 A1 (Glaser).
As to claims 12, 21 and 29,
Glaser teaches,
receive an indication associated with an asset conversion failure incident, the asset conversion failure incident comprising a failure of a user of the self-service retail market environment to complete a transaction for a retrieved inventory asset (para. 72 “customer returning of an item to a shelf, storage, or otherwise removed from the customer's immediate control can result in removing the item from the virtual cart”, 108, 178) prior to leaving a vicinity of the self-service retail market (para. 196 “the checkout summary may be sent to a customer when or after a customer exits the automatic checkout region”);
identify the user (para. 89 “tracking and identifying customers”) based on the indication associated with the asset conversion failure incident (para. 31 “resolve issues relating to the checkout process of a customer”)
Additionally, with respect to claim 12,
Glaser teaches,
an apparatus for …, the apparatus (FIG. 2, item 300, para. 119 “An agent processing system”) comprising:
a memory (para. 197 “a computer-readable medium”);
a processor (para. 197 “The computer-executable component can be a processor”) coupled with the memory and configured to cause the apparatus (para. 81, 197 “a computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions. The instructions can be executed by computer-executable components”) to:
generate an incident report corresponding to the asset conversion failure incident (para. 96) the incident report comprising an asset recovery mechanism associated with an asset recovery operation (para. 96 “the assessment output of the customer evaluation engine 210 can be used in … redirecting the customer to another checkout process if an issue needs to be resolved before completing checkout”);
transmit the incident report to a user mobile device associated with the user (FIG. 13B, para. 132 “A customer may receive notifications when a customer is allowed to use an automatic checkout process (or not), as confirmation of a successful automatic checkout, when the system needs assistance in resolving an item”)
Additionally, with respect to claim 21,
Glaser teaches,
generating an incident report corresponding to the asset conversion failure incident (para. 96);
transmitting the incident report to a user mobile device associated with the user (para. 132), the incident report comprising an asset recovery mechanism associated with an asset recovery operation (para. 96).
Additionally, with respect to claim 29,
Glaser teaches,
An apparatus …, the apparatus (para. 119) comprising:
a memory (para. 197);
a processor (para. 197) coupled with the memory and configured to cause the apparatus (para. 197) to,
generate an incident report corresponding to the asset conversion failure incident (para. 96), the incident report comprising an asset recovery mechanism associated with an asset recovery operation (para. 96);
transmit the incident report to a user mobile device associated with the user (para. 132).
As to claim 13, Glaser teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Glaser teaches,
wherein, to identify the user, the processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to generate, based on sensing data, output information indicative of an identification of the user (para. 89 “identifying customers … using facial recognition”).
As to claim 14, Glaser teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Glaser teaches,
wherein the indication associated with the asset conversion failure incident comprises an image depicting the user, and wherein the processor, to cause the apparatus to identify the user, is configured to cause the apparatus to perform facial recognition on the image to identify the user (para. 89 “identifying customers (or alternatively carts). A synchronization model is primarily used to establish associations of virtual carts generated for CV-people of customers as they approach a checkout region. A synchronization module preferably includes configuration to apply computer vision using facial recognition”, para. 31 “resolve issues relating to the checkout process of a customer such as addressing and correcting potential errors in a virtual cart”).
As to claim 15, Glaser teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Glaser teaches,
wherein the asset recovery mechanism comprises a selectable representation configured to initiate a transaction for the retrieved inventory asset (FIG. 13A, 13B, para. 132 “the customer application such that a customer can assist in resolving an issue with a virtual cart”).
As to claim 16, Glaser teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Glaser teaches,
wherein the processor, to cause the apparatus to identify the user (para. 89), is configured to cause the apparatus (para. 119) to:
receive, from a sensing device, user identification information (para. 89);
identify the user based on the user identification information (para. 89).
As to claim 17, Glaser teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Glaser teaches,
the processor is further configured to cause the apparatus (para. 119) to
transmit the incident report to a management system associated with the self-service retail market environment (para. 96 “the assessment output”)
As to claim 22, Glaser teaches the limitations of claim 21.
Glaser teaches,
receiving an indication of a user interaction with the asset recovery mechanism (135, 195);
performing the asset recovery operation responsive to receiving the indication of the user interaction with the asset recovery mechanism (192, 195).
As to claim 23, Glaser teaches the limitations of claim 21.
Glaser teaches,
receiving a communication from a sensing device, wherein the communication comprises the indication (para. 136, 192).
As to claim 24, Glaser teaches the limitations of claim 21.
Glaser teaches,
receiving a communication from an asset transaction control device, wherein the communication comprises the indication (para. 136, 192).
As to claim 25, Glaser teaches the limitations of claim 21.
Glaser teaches,
wherein the incident report indicates a time period within which the asset recovery operation is to be performed (para. 196)
As to claim 26, Glaser teaches the limitations of claims 21 and 25.
receiving an operator input via an operator device, wherein the operator input is indicative of the time period (para. 192, 196).
As to claim 30, Glaser teaches the limitations of claim 29.
Glaser teaches,
receive user identification information (para. 160, 163);
identify the user based on the user identification information and a user database comprising a user record associated with the user (FIG. 4, para. 56-57, 160, 163)
As to claim 31, Glaser teaches limitations of claims 29-30.
Glaser teaches,
wherein the user identification information is associated with at least one of a user payment card, a user access device, or the user mobile device (para. 57).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaser in view of US 20120321146 A1 (Kundu).
As to claim 27,
Glaser does not teach,
detecting an expiration of a reminder delay timer;
transmitting, based on the expiration of the reminder delay timer, a reminder communication to the user device.
however, Kundu teaches,
detecting an expiration of a reminder delay timer (para. 114);
transmitting, based on the expiration of the reminder delay timer, a reminder communication to the user device (para. 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine transaction failure recover features of Glaser with reminder features of Kundu because a reminder improves failure recovery by automating issue resolution, see Kundu, para. 53.
As to claim 28,
Glaser teaches,
receiving an operator input via an operator device, wherein the operator input is indicative (para. 136) of [the reminder delay timer].
Glaser does not teach,
[receiving …] the reminder delay timer.
however, Kundu teaches,
the reminder delay timer (para. 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine transaction failure recover features of Glaser with reminder features of Kundu because a reminder improves failure recovery by automating issue resolution, see Kundu, para. 53.
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 BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights