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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 filed April 27, 2026 are pending and are hereby examined.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-12 are directed to a system, and claims 13-24 are directed to a method, all of which are statutory. Claims 1-24 are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1 and 13 recites an abstract idea of recognizing items during self-checkout.
The independent claims 1 and 13 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
…;
…;
… configured to capture image datasets associated with one or more areas of interest;
…;
detect… a motion within an area of interest of the one or more areas of interest;
obtain… a first image dataset of the area of interest captured prior to the detected motion;
obtain… a second image dataset of the area of interest captured after the detected motion;
compare the first image dataset and the second image dataset to identify a group of pixels associated with the detected motion;
and perform, based on the group of pixels identified, one or more action.
7. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, recognizing items during self-checkout falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
8. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites recognizing items during self-checkout with generally recited computer elements such as one or more processors, one or more sensors, one or more image acquisition assemblies, and one or more memories, which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for re-order and buying management system for recognizing items during self-checkout. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
9. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of one or more processors, one or more sensors, one or more image acquisition assemblies, and one or more memories to perform these steps 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. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
10. Regarding dependent claims 2 and 14, although these claims recite generally recited one or more memories, one or more processors, and a barcode reader, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of recognizing items during self-checkout, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
11. Regarding dependent claims 3, 6-8, 10, 15, 18-20, and 22, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of recognizing items during self-checkout, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claims 4 and 16, although these claims recite a generally recited barcode reader, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of recognizing items during self-checkout, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
13. Regarding dependent claims 5 and 17, although these claims recite a generally recited artificial neural network and barcode reader, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of recognizing items during self-checkout, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
14. Regarding dependent claims 9 and 21, although these claims recite generally recited one or more processors, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of recognizing items during self-checkout, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Regarding dependent claims 11-12 and 22-23, although these claims recite a generally recited image acquisition assembly and self-checkout station, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of recognizing items during self-checkout, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
16. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
17. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
18. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
19. Claims 1-11 and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Krishnamurthy et al (US 2024/0029275).
20. Re Claims 1, 13: Krishnamurthy discloses comprising:
one or more processors (see [0156] processor);
one or more sensors (see [0079-0082] sensor);
one or more image acquisition assemblies configured to capture image datasets associated with one or more areas of interest (see [0051-0053], Fig. 2A-2C imaging device);
and one or more memories including computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the imaging system to (see [0156] memory):
detect, via the one or more sensors, a motion within an area of interest of the one or more areas of interest (see [0135] detecting motion);
obtain, from the one or more image acquisition assemblies, a first image dataset of the area of interest captured prior to the detected motion (see [0064] and Fig. 10A depth image of item on platform and region-of-interest from image capturing item);
obtain, from the one or more image acquisition assemblies, a second image dataset of the area of interest captured after the detected motion (see [0135] depth image after items are placed on platform);
compare the first image dataset and the second image dataset to identify a group of pixels associated with the detected motion (see [0055, 0135] Fig. 4 comparison of depth images before and after placing items on platform);
and perform, based on the group of pixels identified, one or more actions (see [0146] may process pixels within an image to identify text, colors, barcodes, patterns, or any other characteristics of an item).
21. Re Claims 2, 14: Krishnamurthy discloses further comprising:
a barcode reader (see [0129] barcode scanner);
and the one or memories including computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the imaging system to:
identify, via the barcode reader, an object associated with a symbology decoded by the barcode reader within a threshold period of time corresponding to the detected motion (see [0164] takes depth images every second, 10 seconds, 30 seconds, or suitable time interval);
and verify the object associated with the symbology may be represented by the group of pixels (see [0182] determine whether region of interest correctly identified).
22. Re Claims 3, 15: 3. Krishnamurthy discloses wherein the object is verified based on comparing characteristics of the object associated with the symbology with one or more of: (i) a size of the group of pixels, (ii) a color of the group of pixels, or (iii) a shape of the group of pixels (see [0127] size, color, or shape).
23. Re Claims 4, 16: Krishnamurthy discloses wherein the one or more actions include one or more of:
(i) attempting to verify that the group of pixels associated with the detected motion corresponds to the object associated with the symbology decoded by the barcode reader (see [0182] determine whether region of interest correctly identified);
(ii) attempting to identify, based on the group of pixels associated with the detected motion, a detected object, and comparing the detected object with the object associated with a symbology decoded by the barcode reader (see [0098 and 0099], Fig. 38A and 38B identifying items); and
(iii) in response to failing to verify the group of pixels or failing to identify the detected object, generate an alert indicating the symbology decoded by the barcode reader needs to be checked for accuracy (see [0683-0685] failure to identify item).
24. Re Claims 5, 17: Krishnamurthy discloses wherein an artificial neural network is used to (i) verify that the group of pixels corresponds to the object associated with the symbology decoded by the barcode reader and (ii) identify the detected object (see [0126] neural networks).
25. Re Claims 6, 18: Krishnamurthy discloses wherein comparing the first image dataset and second image dataset further comprises:
identifying the group of pixels based on the group of pixels having different corresponding pixel values in the first image dataset and the second image dataset (see [0135] have different depth values);
segmenting the group of pixels from the first image dataset or the second image dataset to generate a segmented image dataset (see [0250] segmentation); and
analyzing the segmented image dataset to identify an object (see [0098 and 0099], Fig. 38A and 38B identifying items).
26. Re Claims 7, 19: Krishnamurthy discloses wherein segmenting the group of pixels from the first image dataset or the second image dataset further comprises:
identifying one or more subgroups of contiguous pixels in the group of pixels (see [0200] identifies pixel location); and
segmenting the one or more subgroups of contiguous pixels from the first image dataset or the second image dataset, thereby generating the segmented image dataset (see [0250] segmentation).
27. Re Claims 8, 20: Krishnamurthy discloses wherein identifying the group of pixels is based on the one or more subgroups of contiguous pixels identified exceeding threshold number of pixels (see [0184] depth threshold value).
28. Re Claims 9, 21: Krishnamurthy discloses including computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the imaging system to:
determine, based on differences in pixel value between corresponding pixels in the first image dataset and the second image dataset, a pixel change average of the differences in pixel value for each respective subgroup of contiguous pixels (see [0136] difference in pixel values).
29. Re Claims 10, 22: Krishnamurthy discloses wherein identifying the group of pixels is based on the one or more subgroups of contiguous pixels exceeding a threshold pixel change average (see [0184] depth threshold value).
30. Re Claims 11, 23: Krishnamurthy discloses wherein the one or more image acquisition assemblies are positioned proximate to a self-checkout station and wherein the one or more areas of interest are proximate to the self-checkout station (see Fig. 2A imaging primate to self-checkout station).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
31. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
32. 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.
33. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
34. Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy et al (US 2024/0029275) in view of Barkan et al (US 2021/0374699).
35. Re Claims 12, 24: Krishnamurthy fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Barkan teaches: wherein each image acquisition assembly includes a respective imaging assembly that has a field of view (FOV) directed towards a respective area of interest of the one or more areas of interest proximate to the self-checkout station (see [0020-0021] field of view). From the teaching of Barkan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Krishnamurthy’s invention with Barkan’s teaching of field-of-view in order “… to help customers get what they need more quickly, whether that be to place an order, or checkout of a store (see Barkan [0002]).”
Examiner Notes
36. The Examiner suggests clarifying the detection motion of what exactly, and what actions are to be taken. The Examiner suggests incorporating the hardware elements of claim 1 into claim 13. The Examiner suggests incorporating the artificial neural network and how it uniquely trained and re-trained. The Examiner suggests incorporating dependent claims 5 (dependent on 4 which is dependent on 2), 3, 10 (dependent on 9, which is dependent on 8, which is dependent on 7, which is dependent upon 6), and 12 together into the independent claims. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
Response to Arguments
37. Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/26 have been fully considered and are not found to be convincing, therefore the 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 102, and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are hereby maintained.
a) Argument #1: Claims do not recite a judicial exception because it is not directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity” and therefore not an abstract idea
38. With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims are related to recognizing items during self-checkout, which would fall under certain methods of organizing human activity of commercial or legal interactions. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Recognizing items during self-checkout is a form of marketing or sales activity or behavior, and is therefore an abstract idea.
b) Argument #2: Applicant argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 (improvement to technology)
39. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to improving the functioning of the computer/technology/technical field, the claims recite the additional elements of one or more processors, one or more sensors, one or more image acquisition assemblies, and one or more memories and they are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore are merely using computer processing components for recognizing items during self-checkout. After further review of the Specification, there is no disclosure of technical enhancements to any of the computing components, as in multiple instances of the Specification it discloses generally recited elements. Interpreting the claims in view of the Specification, the claims recite the judicial exception are mere instructions to apply the exception of recognizing items during self-checkout (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The elements recited above do not recite and are not directed to any elements or functions that improve underlying technology.
40. According to MPEP 2106.05(a), it states: “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer).”
41. Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, the additional elements of one or more processors, one or more sensors, one or more image acquisition assemblies, and one or more memories, i.e., that are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem of recognizing items during self-checkout. The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., recognizing items during self-checkout, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field. Therefore, the claims do not integrate into a practical application either by improvement to a computer/technology/technical field.
42. The claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of two-factor authentication using proximity. The applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, the Specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems or technology. The applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
c) Argument #3: Applicant argues that the claim elements are significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B
43. Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that claims 1 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
44. Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
45. Here the only additional elements recited in claims 1 and 13 beyond the abstract idea are: the additional elements of one or more processors, one or more sensors, one or more image acquisition assemblies, and one or more memories, i.e., generic computer components. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
46. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of the independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the same rationale.
d) Argument #4: Applicant argues that Krishnamurthy fails to disclose “detecting, via one or more sensors, a motion within an area of interest of one or more areas of interest,” “obtaining… a first image dataset of the area captured prior to the detected motion,” and “obtaining… a second image dataset of the area of interest captured after the detected motion.”
47. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding detecting motion, in [0019, 0034] of Krishnamurthy, it describes detecting placement of an item on a platform, hence a motion, where the platform is an area of interest (area of interest needs to be more clearly defined). Then, regarding obtaining images prior to the detected motion, in [0055, 0135] and Fig. 4 of Krishnamurthy, it describes depth images before placing items on the platform. Next, regarding obtaining images after the detected motion, the same paragraphs of [0055, 0135] and Fig. 4 of Krishnamurthy, it describes obtaining images after the detected motion.
e) Argument #5: Applicant argues claims 12 and 24 are not disclosed in Krishnamurthy or Barkan
48. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as Barkan as used to teach the field of view which is clearly disclosed in [0020 and 0021] of Barkan. The Examiner also provided a clear rationale or motivation statement for reasons to combine the two references.
Conclusion
49. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Bobbit et al (Visual item verification for fraud prevention in retail self-checkout, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
50. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
51. 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.
52. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
53. 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.
54. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
55. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights