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 .
Priority
Applicant has not claimed priority to another application. Application 18/677,183 was filed 5/29/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been submitted.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 3/6/2026, have been entered. Claims 1-4, 8, 10-14, 17, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Interview
Examiner and Attorney of record, Predrag Radosavljevic (Reg. No. 73,537) conducted an interview 3/24/2026. Examiner discussed potential amendments in an effort to expedite prosecution of this application. No agreement was reached. See attached interview summary.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-11, are directed to a process, the non-transitory computer readable medium, as claimed in claims 12-19, are directed to an article of manufacture, and the system, as claimed in claim 20, are directed to a machine (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
gathering by a user at a physical location, one or more images of an item at the physical location;
receiving the one or more images of the item;
applying one or more techniques to the one or more images to identify the item;
responsive to identifying the item, storing, in an item catalog, the one or more images of the item in an entry of the item in the item catalog;
retrieving, from the entry of the item in the item catalog, item data with information about the item including the one or more images;
accessing a seasonality prediction model, wherein the seasonality prediction model is to predict a seasonality of the item;
applying the seasonality prediction model to the item data including the one or more images to generate a seasonality score for the item that is indicative of the predicted seasonality and
identify a season associated with the item;
updating the item catalog by adding an identification of the identified season to the entry of the item in the item catalog;
generating using the seasonality score for the item and the identified season, action data associated with one or more actions in relation to the item; and
communicating, to a retailer, the action data prompting the one or more actions in relation to the item.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because updating information within an item catalog based on an item’s seasonality and communicating this information to a retailer is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 12 and 20 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 12 and 20 as described above for independent claim 1.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
performed at a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium, comprising:
gathering, via cameras integrated into a smart shopping cart of the computer system operated by a user of the computer system at a physical location, one or more images of an item at the physical location;
receiving, via a network and from the smart shopping cart, the one or more images of the item;
applying, by an order management module of the computer system, one or more computer-vision techniques to the one or more images to identify the item;
responsive to identifying the item, storing, in an item catalog database of the computer system, the one or more images of the item in an entry of the item in the item catalog database;
retrieving, from the entry of the item in the item catalog database, item data with information about the item including the one or more images;
accessing a seasonality prediction model of the computer system, wherein the seasonality prediction model is a machine-learning model trained to predict a seasonality of the item;
applying the seasonality prediction model to the item data including the one or more images to generate a seasonality score for the item that is indicative of the predicted seasonality and
identify a season associated with the item;
updating the item catalog database by adding an identification of the identified season to the entry of the item in the item catalog database;
generating using the seasonality score for the item and the identified season, action data associated with one or more actions in relation to the item; and
communicating, to a computing system of a retailer and via a network, the action data prompting the one or more actions in relation to the item.
In this case, claim 12 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps comprising:
gathering, via cameras integrated into a smart shopping cart of a computer system operated by a user of the computer system at a physical location, one or more images of an item at the physical location;
receiving, via a network and from the smart shopping cart, the one or more images of the item;
applying, by an order management module of the computer system, one or more computer-vision techniques to the one or more images to identify the item;
responsive to identifying the item, storing, in an item catalog database of the computer system, the one or more images of the item in an entry of the item in the item catalog database;
retrieving, from the entry of the item in the item catalog database, item data with information about the item including the one or more images;
accessing a seasonality prediction model of the computer system, wherein the seasonality prediction model is a machine-learning model trained to predict a seasonality of the item;
applying the seasonality prediction model to the item data including the one or more images to generate a seasonality score for the item that is indicative of the predicted seasonality and identify a season associated with the item;
updating the item catalog database by adding an identification of the identified season to the entry of the item in the item catalog database;
generating using the seasonality score for the item and the identified season, action data associated with one or more actions in relation to the item; and
communicating, to a computing system of a retailer and via a network, the action data prompting the one or more actions in relation to the item.
In this case, claim 20 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computer system comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to perform steps comprising:
gathering, via cameras integrated into a smart shopping cart of the computer system operated by a user of the computer system at a physical location, one or more images of an item at the physical location;
receiving, via a network and from the smart shopping cart, the one or more images of the item;
applying, by an order management module of the computer system, one or more computer-vision techniques to the one or more images to identify the item;
responsive to identifying the item, storing, in an item catalog database of the computer system, the one or more images of the item in an entry of the item in the item catalog database;
retrieving, from the entry of the item in the item catalog database, item data with information about the item including the one or more images;
accessing a seasonality prediction model of the computing system, wherein the seasonality prediction model is a machine-learning model trained to predict a seasonality of the item;
applying the seasonality prediction model to the item data including the one or more images to generate a seasonality score for the item that is indicative of the predicted seasonality and identify a season associated with the item;
updating the item catalog database by adding an identification of the identified season to the entry of the item in the item catalog database;
generating using the seasonality score for the item and the identified season, action data associated with one or more actions in relation to the item; and
communicating, to a computing system of a retailer and via a network, the action data prompting the one or more actions in relation to the item.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“performed at a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium”, gathering images via “cameras”, “the computer system” operated by a user, receiving/transmitting data “via a network”, storing/retrieving data in an item catalog “database of the computer system”, a “computing” system of a retailer associated with the “online” system, “a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps”, a “computer” system comprising: “a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to perform steps”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (gathering/receiving/retrieving/accessing information, transmitting/communicating information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 12, and 20 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1-2; paragraphs [0012], [0016]-[0017], [0025], [0028]-[0031], [0051]-[0056], [0059], [0096]-[0098]). Further, while the claims recite “cameras” integrated into a smart shopping cart of the computer system, identifying items using “one or more computer-vision techniques by an order management module of the computer system”, and wherein the seasonality prediction model is “a machine-learning model trained” model, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in the specification (see paragraphs [0031], [0046], [0059], [0096]-[0098]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Paragraph [0096] indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable “Any of the steps, operations, or processes described herein may be performed or implemented with one or more hardware or software modules, alone or in combination with other devices. In some embodiments, a software module is implemented with a computer program product comprising one or more computer-readable media storing computer program code or instructions, which can be executed by a computer processor for performing any or all of the steps, operations, or processes described. In some embodiments, a computer-readable medium comprises one or more computer-readable media that, individually or together, comprise instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform, individually or together, the steps of the instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable media. Similarly, a processor comprises one or more processors or processing units that, individually or together, perform the steps of instructions stored on a computer-readable medium.” This is especially pertinent with respect to gathering, via cameras integrated into a smart shopping cart of the computer system operated by a user of the computer system at a physical location, one or more images of an item at the physical location, for which the claim (as currently claimed) contains no restriction on how this result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Moreover, the specification describes gathering images as “one or more cameras 305 that collect video data and/or image data” (¶0059)- merely utilizing this technique of cameras collecting image data. These descriptions demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited gathering/receiving/retrieving/accessing and transmitting/communicating steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Lastly, as currently claimed, gathering, via cameras integrated into a smart shopping cart of the computer system operated by a user of the computer system at a physical location, one or more images of an item at the physical location is little more than pre-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 21 and 27 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 12, and 20, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 12, and 20 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 12, and 20 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Moreover, publications such as Reference A , Reference B, and Reference C of the Notice of References cited describes smart carts are well-understood, routine, and conventional as being “known” in the art as shopping carts with a display and/or cameras and/or sensors attached to the shopping cart to capture information such as images of products, identify the product in the captured image, communicate and transmit data to other computing devices, and display information (see at least paragraphs [0025], [0035]-[0037] of Reference A, at least paragraph [0005] of Reference B, and at least paragraphs [0239]-[0240], [0275], [0425], [0439], [0467]-[0468], [0502] of Reference C).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 12, and 20 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1, 12, and 20 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 8, 10, 11, 17, 19
Dependent claim(s) 8, 10, 11, 17, 19, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 8, 10, 11, 17, 19 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1 and 12 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1 and 12.
Claims 8, 10, 11, 17, 19 set forth:
further comprising: comparing the seasonality score for the item with a threshold score; responsive to the seasonality score for the item being greater than the threshold score, accessing a price sensitivity model of the online system, wherein the price sensitivity model is trained to predict a price sensitivity of the item; and applying the price sensitivity model to output, based at least in part on the item data, a price sensitivity score for the item that is indicative of the predicted price sensitivity of the item.
further comprising: obtaining historical order data associated with the item; and generating, based at least in part on the historical order data, a substitutability score for the item that is indicative of a substitutability of the item.
wherein: generating the action data comprises generating, further based on the price sensitivity score and the substitutability score, the action data; and communicating the action data comprises communicating, to the computing system associated with the retailer and via the network, a recommendation for the retailer about at least one of merchandising the item or managing an inventory of the item.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of updating information within an item catalog based on an item’s seasonality and communicating this information to a retailer. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1 and 12, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1 and 12.
Thus, dependent 8, 10, 11, 17, 19 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9, 13-16, 18
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9, 13-16, 18 sets forth:
wherein acquiring the item data comprises: receiving, via the network from one or more devices of one or more pickers associated with the online system, the item data including at least one of one or more images of the item, information about availability of the item over a defined time period, or information about a price of the item over the defined time period; storing the received item data at a database of the online system; and retrieving the stored item data from the database that stored the received item data.
wherein acquiring the item data comprises: receiving, via the network from one or more computing systems mounted to one or more physical receptacles utilized for shopping at one or more locations of the retailer, the item data including at least one of one or more images of the item, information about availability of the item over a defined time period, or information about a price of the item over the defined time period; storing the received item data at a database of the online system; and retrieving the stored item data from the database that stored the received item data.
wherein acquiring the item data comprises: receiving, via the network from one or more devices associated with one or more user of the online system, the item data with information about conversion of the item over a defined time period by the one or more users; storing the received item data at a database of the online system; and retrieving the stored item data from the database.
further comprising: collecting training data including at least one of manually labeled data with information about what items in the item catalog database are seasonal items or retailer-curated seasonal collection data stored at the item catalog database; and training, using the training data, the seasonality prediction model to generate a set of initial values for a set of parameters of the seasonality prediction model.
further comprising: applying a set of heuristics on the item data to output a set of results including a prediction of whether the item is a seasonal item; generating training data based at least in part on the set of results; and training, using the training data, the seasonality prediction model to generate a set of initial values for a set of parameters of the seasonality prediction model.
further comprising: collecting feedback data with least one of information about conversion of the item over a defined time period or feedback from the retailer about the seasonality of the item; and re-training the seasonality prediction model by updating, using the collected feedback data, a set of parameters of the seasonality prediction model.
further comprising: generating training data by retrieving, from the item catalog database, a set of observed price sensitivity scores for a set of items in the item catalog database; and training, using the training data, the price sensitivity model to generate a set of initial values for a set of parameters of the price sensitivity model.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of updating information within an item catalog based on an item’s seasonality and communicating this information to a retailer. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “one or more devices of one or more pickers”, “a database of the online system”, “one or more computing systems mounted to one or more physical receptacles”, “one or more devices associated with one or more user of the online system”, “training, using the training data, the seasonality prediction model”, “re-training the seasonality prediction model”, “training, using the training data, the price sensitivity model”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 1 and 12, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0012], [0016]-[0017], [0025], [0028]-[0030], [0051]-[0056] indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Further, the “training” and “re-training” of models is recited at a high level and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claim 2-7, 9, 13-16, 18 are also ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 14-15 of the Remarks filed 3/6/2026, with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the currently amended claims. Accordingly the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 15-16 of the Remarks filed 3/6/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended claims integrates any abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner agrees that the amended limitations including specific physical devices (i.e., smart shopping cart, a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium, a camera, etc.) do not fall within the abstract idea, the Examiner disagrees that these elements impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. As currently claimed, these elements represent the mere use of generic computing components to facility the abstract idea. Notably, the specification provides only a brief description of a camera integrated into a smart shopping cart, a network, a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium (see at least Figs. 1-2; paragraphs [0012], [0016]-[0017], [0025], [0028]-[0031], [0051]-[0056], [0059], [0096]-[0098]).
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to either a camera integrated into a smart shopping cart for gathering one or more images, a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium, etc., and is specific only in their use in facilitating the abstract idea of updating information within an item catalog based on an item’s seasonality and communicating this information to a retailer.
The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is akin to ineligible decisions such as Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible), or, Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims contained no restriction on the manner in which the additional elements perform these claimed functions). The alleged improvement by Applicant is at best a bare assertion of an improvement sans sufficient detail to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the alleged improvement to the technical field.
The character of the claims as a whole is not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit. The claims of the instant application, however, merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. The claims lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the myriad of ineligible court decisions that employed generic computer components at a high-level to achieve improvements in commercial processes.
In review of the claimed invention, and in consideration of the specification as originally filed, the Examiner asserts that:
(i) the claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process, and,
(ii) the specification, as originally filed, does not provide sufficient discloser or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
Even assuming a relationship of the claimed invention to another technology or technical field, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological process, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure most provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Even when a specification explicitly asserts an improvement, examiner should not determine a claim improves technology when only a bare assertion of an improvement is present without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Further, the instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” requiring the generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality or requiring the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces to improve a technical process. As currently recited, the instant claims are directed to improving the business task of “updating information within an item catalog based on an item’s seasonality and communicating this information to a retailer” (i.e., the abstract idea).
Therefore, the Examiner maintains the currently recited claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and maintains the rejection Step 2A, Prong Two.
For the reasons noted above, in the full rejection of the claims, Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 USC 101 for independent claims 1, 12, and 20 as claims 12 and 20 recite similar limitations to claim 1 and do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the 101 rejection of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 16-17 of the Remarks filed 3/6/2026, with respect to the 35 USC §103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. Accordingly, the previous 35 USC §103 rejections of the claims are withdrawn.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference A of the Notice of References Cited Nagar et al. (US 2021/0174421 A1) discloses a the well-understood, routine, and conventional camera gathering images of items and the known smart shopping cart can comprise the camera.
Reference B of the Notice of References Cited Chaubard et al. (US 2018/0330196 A1) discloses the well-understood, routine, and conventional automated checkout systems , which identify products that a customer places in their shopping cart using cameras, and/or other sensors, that may be attached to the shopping cart.
Reference C of the Notice of References Cited Bronicki et al. (US 2022/0114868 A1) discloses the well-understood, routine, and conventional smart shopping cart comprising camaras for generating images of products, a display for displaying information, and communicating information between the smart shopping cart and other devices.
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 LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 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, Jeff 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688