DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. The 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 1-20 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 via a camera, wherein the stock level data comprises an estimated stock level of a product batch within a physical site (observation);
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 (observation);
determining a second price for the product batch using a machine learning (ML) model based on the expiration date and the estimated stock level (evaluation); and
updating the database with the second price for the product batch (opinion).
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 thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or a mental process (see above notations). 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 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. 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, 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 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 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 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0217447 to Sarkar (“Sarkar”) in view of WIPO 2021/142384 to Schumacher et al. (“Schumacher”).
7. With regards to claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15), Sarkar disclosed the limitations of,
retrieving product information for the product batch from a database, wherein the product information comprises an expiration date and a first price for the product batch (See [0024]-[0025] discussing sales information including the expiration date of the product and original pricing being stored in the price management system.);
determining a second price for the product batch …based on the expiration date and the estimated stock level (See [0053] discussing adjusting price based on expiration dates and inventory levels.); and
updating the database with the second price for the product batch (See [0051]-[0053] discussing the updating of prices in the price management database.).
Sarkar is silent of the limitations of,
receiving stock level data via a camera, wherein the stock level data comprises an estimated stock level of a product batch within a physical site;
using a machine learning (ML) model
However, Schumacher teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail art to include receiving stock level data via a camera, wherein the stock level data comprises an estimated stock level of a product batch within a physical site (See [0051] discussing using a camera capture to create data on the amount of stock.) and using a machine learning (ML) model (See [0037]-[0038] discussing using intelligence server including machine learning to updated pricing data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the retail art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Schumacher to include receiving stock level data via a camera, wherein the stock level data comprises an estimated stock level of a product batch within a physical site and using a machine learning (ML) model, as disclosed by Schumacher. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a streamline process and operational efficiency (Schumacher [0004]).
8. With regards to claim 2 (similarly claims 9 and 16), Sarkar disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the product batch comprises a group of items of a same type that share a matching expiration date (See [0007] discussing manage prices of multiple items in real time. See also [0050] discussing batches with differing dates.).
9. With regards to claim 3 (similarly claims 10 and 17), Sarkar is silent on the limitations of,
wherein the camera comprises an edge camera with built-in processing capability to:
generate one or more images of the product batch within the physical site; and
use image recognition techniques to determine the estimated stock level of the product batch based on the one or more images.
However, Schumacher teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail art to include camera comprises an edge camera with built-in processing capability to: generate one or more images of the product batch within the physical site; and use image recognition techniques to determine the estimated stock level of the product batch based on the one or more images (See [[0041]-[0043] discussing the location, positioning, and angle of the inventory camera, [0046] discussing using object recognition, and [0051] discussing using a camera capture to create data on the amount of stock.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the retail art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Schumacher to include camera comprises an edge camera with built-in processing capability to: generate one or more images of the product batch within the physical site; and use image recognition techniques to determine the estimated stock level of the product batch based on the one or more images, as disclosed by Schumacher. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a streamline process and operational efficiency (Schumacher [0004]).
10. With regards to claim 4 (similarly claims 11 and 18), Sarkar disclosed the limitations of,
sending the second price for the product batch to a shelf input/output (IO) device (See [0044] discussing the pricing updates to the stationary receiving display terminals.).
11. With regards to claim 6 (similarly claim 13), Sarkar disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the shelf IO device is connected to the database to:
receive the second price for the product batch (See [0044] discussing the pricing updates to the stationary receiving display terminals and [0051]-[ [0053] discussing the updating of prices in the price management database.); and
update a display screen of the shelf IO device based on the second price (See [0044] discussing the pricing updates to the stationary receiving display terminals.).
12. With regards to claim 7 (similarly claims 14 and 20), Sarkar disclosed the limitations of,
wherein a checkout station is connected to the database to retrieve the second price for the product batch upon scanning a label associated with the product batch during a checkout process (See [0041] discussing the billing source being updated with price changes and [0024] defining billing sources as a point of sale systems that complete a retail transaction by processing payment of items.).
13. With regards to claim 5 (similarly claim 12), Sarkar disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the shelf IO device (See [0068] discussing the electronic display tags as stationary receiving display terminals.).
Sarkar is silent on the limitation of,
is attached to a shelf presenting the product batch within the physical site
However, Schumacher teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail art to include device is attached to a shelf presenting the product batch within the physical site (See [0021]-[0022] discussing the fascia and it being mounted to a shelf.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the retail art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Schumacher to include is attached to a shelf presenting the product batch within the physical site, as disclosed by Schumacher. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a streamline process and operational efficiency (Schumacher [0004]).
14. With regards to claim 19, Sarkar disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the shelf IO device, and
the shelf IO device is connected to the database to:
receive the second price for the product batch ( See [0044] discussing the pricing updates to the stationary receiving display terminals and [0051]-[ [0053] discussing the updating of prices in the price management database.); and
update a display screen of the shelf IO device based on the second price (See [0044] discussing the pricing updates to the stationary receiving display terminals.).
Sarkar is silent on the limitation of,
is attached to a shelf presenting the product batch within the physical site
However, Schumacher teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail art to include device is attached to a shelf presenting the product batch within the physical site (See [0021]-[0022] discussing the fascia and it being mounted to a shelf.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the retail art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Schumacher to include is attached to a shelf presenting the product batch within the physical site, as disclosed by Schumacher. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a streamline process and operational efficiency (Schumacher [0004]).
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
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.
Prosecution Insights