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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendment filed on 02 September 2026, has been entered and made of record.
In view of the amendments, claims 94-112 are in condition for allowance, however, claim 113, has not been amended, thereby, the previous rejection in the Non-final Office Action is sustained.
Nonetheless, Examiner looks forward to receiving further amendments/Interviews and to expedite allowance of this application.
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.
Claim 113 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 113 is focused to a statutory category namely a, “Computer program.
Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two: Independent Claim 113 recites limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely: “applying, using a processor system, receive an image depicting a store shelf having at least one bottle displayed thereon; analyze the image to detect a representation in the image of the at least one bottle, wherein the at least one bottle has an outline design associated with a product shape.” (such analysis could be done by mental step without a processor); “applying, using the processor system, identify in the image two outline elements being associated with the outline design of the at least one bottle, wherein each of the two outline elements has a specific length; and determine a size of the at least one bottle based on a comparison of the lengths of the two outline elements. (comparison of the lengths of the two outline elements could be done by mental step without a processor.)”.
The claim recites the abstract idea of analyzing the image to detect a representation in the image of at least one bottle, wherein the at least one bottle has an outline design associated with a product shape. The content of the claimed invention pertains to continuous analysis to determine the size of the at least one bottle based on a comparison of the lengths of the two outline elements.
To perform the claim invention, the steps implemented are consisting of receiving an image depicting a store shelf having at least one bottle displayed thereon; analyzing the image to detect a representation in the image of the at least one bottle, wherein the at least one bottle has an outline design associated with a product shape; identifying in the image two outline elements being associated with the outline design of the at least one bottle, wherein each of the two outline elements has a specific length; and determining a size of the at least one bottle based on a comparison of the lengths of the two outline elements.
Accordingly, this claim falls under categories for mental processes.
Therefore, the abstract idea of these claims are grouped under mental processes and certain methods of determining the size of the at least one bottle based on a comparison of the lengths of the two outline elements.
Moreover, the mere recitation of computer components (Claim 113: computer readable storage medium) does not take the claim out of methods of mental processes groupings. Thus, the claim recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole utilizes generic computers i.e., processor system which are notoriously well known in the art to carry out steps that otherwise could be done by mental steps i.e., “receiving, analyzing, identifying and determining.”
Therefore, the claim contain computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons described above with respect to Claim 113, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 113 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements of a processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc... are recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it’ (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) — Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception).
The additional elements of “receiving an image depicting a store shelf having at least one bottle displayed thereon; analyzing the image to detect a representation in the image of the at least one bottle, wherein the at least one bottle has an outline design associated with a product shape; identifying in the image two outline elements being associated with the outline design of the at least one bottle, wherein each of the two outline elements has a specific length; and determining a size of the at least one bottle based on a comparison of the lengths of the two outline elements..”, etc... in Independent 113 are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception to analyzing and determining and comparing of the lengths of the two outline elements in the field of image analysis (see MPEP §2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The additional elements of a processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc... are recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it’ (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) — Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception).
The limitations of the claim do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using recited computer components and furthermore do not amount to any improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
Examiner suggests integrating the Objected allowable subject matter of the blow mentioned claims into the Independent Claims (emphasis added).
Finally, the Examiner assesses that the contents of the claimed invention encompass a limited Field of Use and Technological Environment (see MPEP §2106.05(h)). More specifically, the steps of the claimed invention involve receiving an image depicting a store shelf having at least one bottle displayed thereon; analyzing the image to detect a representation in the image of the at least one bottle, wherein the at least one bottle has an outline design associated with a product shape; identifying in the image two outline elements being associated with the outline design of the at least one bottle, wherein each of the two outline elements has a specific length; and determining a size of the at least one bottle based on a comparison of the lengths of the two outline elements. This requirement merely limits the claims on the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning, IP, LLC. V. latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 104-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself.
Accordingly, Claim 113 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 94-112 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest applied Prior Art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine a confidence level for the determined size; when the confidence level is below a predetermined threshold, analyze the image to identify another product on the store shelf, wherein the other product includes another outline element associated with a specific length; and confirm the size of the bottle based on a comparison of the specific length of the other outline element of the other product and the length of one of the two outline elements of the at least one bottle.
Prior Art of record
The Prior Art which are pertinent to Applicant’s invention but were not relied upon:
Avegliano et al. (USPAP 2015/0235,157), recites, “A method for calculating sales trend of a product at a store shelf based on crowdsourcing, includes receiving, by a retail store server, availability data of a product measured on a shelf in the retail store from a portable device, where the availability data is in the form of a picture acquired of the product on the shelf, identifying products on the shelf using tags attached to the shelves, calculating sales velocity and sales trends of the product from the identified products, and transmitting the sales velocity and sales trend of the product to one or more third parties' systems in a supply chain of said retail store. Products and their locations on retail store shelves have been cataloged in a product database.”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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 AMIR ALAVI whose telephone number is (571)272-7386. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:00-4:30.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571)272-7332. 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.
/AMIR ALAVI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 Wednesday, October 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights