DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments filed 7/22/206. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23 are currently pending. Claims 3, 10, and 17 were cancelled. The earliest effective filing date of the present application is 5/21/2024.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23 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 1-7 are processes (methods), and claims 8-20 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15) recites the following bolded abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
1. A method comprising:
receiving stock level data from an edge camera positioned within a physical site, wherein the stock level data comprises an estimated stock level of a product batch within the physical site, wherein the edge camera reduces network bandwidth usage and computational load associated with determining the estimated stock level by:
capturing one or more images of the product batch;
applying one or more preprocessing operations to the one or more images, without transmitting the one or more images to an external database or server; and
applying one or more image recognition techniques to the one or more preprocessed images to determine the estimated stock level, without transmitting the one or more preprocessed images to the external database or server;
retrieving product information for the product batch from a database1, wherein the product information comprises an expiration date and a first price for the product batch;
determining a second price for the product batch using a machine learning (ML) model based on the expiration date and the estimated stock level; and
updating the database with the second price for the product batch.
Claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15) is directed to a series of steps for updating pricing for a product batch based on stock level and product information, which is a commercial/legal interaction (sales activity) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); thus, grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04(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 edge camera, machine learning model, memory, processor, computing system, non-transitory computer-readable media 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 [0075] discussing the multiple types of generic processor that could be used. Examiner notes the limitation “wherein the edge camera reduces network bandwidth usage and computational load associated with determining the estimated stock level” is recited at an apply it level as the claims do not reflect this “technical improvement.” Further examiner notes that “computational load is not reduced but shift to a different processor that of the edge camera. The claim is directed towards 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 edge camera, machine learning model, memory, processor, computing system, non-transitory computer-readable media 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. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18-23 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The dependent claims include additional elements such as shelf input/output (IO) device and checkout station; however, these additional elements do not rise above mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18-23 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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23in 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. In Remarks (7/22/2026), Applicant argues that the nearest art, Sarkar 2016/0217447 and Schumacher WIPO 2021/142384, does not teach the amended limitations, the examiner agrees. Neither Sarkar nor Schumacher teaches capturing one or more images of the product batch applying one or more preprocessing operations to the one or more images,
without transmitting the one or more images to an external database or server; and
applying one or more image recognition techniques to the one or more preprocessed images to determine the estimated stock level, without transmitting the one or more preprocessed images to the external database or server. 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.
.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7/22/2026, with respect to §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §103 rejection has been withdrawn.
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2Bas a technical improvement. Examiner disagrees. Instead the argued improvement represent improvements to the abstract idea of the certain methods of organizing human activity as discussed above. In contrast, the MPEP cite to “a modification of Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid web page” (i.e., the invention of DDR Holdings) to demonstrate an “improvement in the function of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” That is, the improvements achieved by the claimed invention appear to be directed towards improvements to business practices (i.e., to save time through efficiency, e.g., see [0020] of the originally filed Specification) and/or to commerce (i.e., increase profitability, e.g., see [0025] of the originally filed Specification) rather than technical/technological improvements to those disclosed in, for example, DDR Holdings and §101 Examples 37-42.
Applicant further argues :
PNG
media_image1.png
222
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner disagrees. The additional elements of the dependent claims were addressed. As the shelf input/output device were receiving and outputting data from and the checkout station is connected to the database to retrieve data implies both are at an apply level functioning as generic computer components. Further, as recited the use of image recognition techniques is part of the abstract idea as it is using data to accomplish a task. Applicant did not claim a specific image recognition process just the usable of data of it.
Further, examiner notes no extra-solution activity was identified; thus, a Berkheimer analysis of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity was not required.
Examiner notes the §103 analysis does not effect the §101 analysis. MPEP §2106.05 states:
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
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.
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
1 Examiner notes that a data base or a chart/table with information in it is considered part of the abstract idea of mental processes as it can be performed with pen and paper.
