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 .
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.
In the instant case, Claims 1-10 are directed to a method and Claims 11-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) surveilling a retail transaction. Specifically, the claims recite the steps of detecting an unscanned item from an interior of a cart, determining a location of the unscanned item, generating anomaly data having the location of the unscanned item and displaying the anomaly data, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)) because the functional steps and process can be performed manually. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the computing device, processor, memory and cart merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the computing device, processor, memory and cart perform(s) the steps or functions of the steps of detecting an unscanned item from an interior of a cart, determining a location of the unscanned item, generating anomaly data having the location of the unscanned item and displaying the anomaly data. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims 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 technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a the computing device, processor, memory and cart to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of surveilling a retail transaction. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the computing device, processor, memory and cart perform(s) the steps or functions of the steps of detecting an unscanned item from an interior of a cart, determining a location of the unscanned item, generating anomaly data having the location of the unscanned item and displaying the anomaly data. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of surveilling a retail transaction. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 further describe the abstract idea of surveilling a retail transaction. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 11, 13, 14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas (US 2026/0017634 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Thomas discloses
a method in a computing device, i.e., computing system (180), as illustrated in figure 1, the method comprising:
detecting an unscanned item (165) within a cart (160) from an image of an interior of the cart (160), i.e., via camera (195), as illustrated in figure 1 and as mentioned at paragraphs 23 and 25, for example;
in response to detecting the unscanned item (165), determining a location of the unscanned item (165) within the cart (160), as mentioned at paragraphs 10, 32, 44 and 45, for example, and;
generating anomaly data having the location of the unscanned item within the cart, as mentioned at paragraphs 39 and 40 and as illustrated in figure 2, block (210) entitled “position(s) of item(s) in shopping cart change” and at block (212) entitled “capture new image of items within the shopping cart”;
and
causing a display of the anomaly data, as mentioned at paragraph and at block (220) entitled “cause an indication that there is an unscanned item(s) in the shopping cart to display on the display system” and “prompt customer to scan the unscanned item(s)”.
Regarding Claim 3, Thomas discloses
wherein causing the display of the anomaly data includes storing
the anomaly data, i.e., visual data (192), in a memory, i.e., storage system (188), as illustrated in figure 1 and as mentioned at paragraphs 27, 29 and 71.
Regarding Claim 4, Thomas discloses
wherein causing the display of the anomaly data includes transmitting the anomaly data to a server via a communications interface, noting the mention of cloud computing infrastructure in paragraphs 12, 28, 70 and 71, for example.
Regarding Claim 6, Thomas discloses
wherein the anomaly data further comprises the image (192) as illustrated in figure 1 and steps (208, 212, 214, 216) as illustrated in figure 2, for example.
Regarding Claim 7, Thomas discloses
further comprising:
in response to detecting the unscanned item, i.e., step (222) as illustrated in figure 2, selecting a plurality of images preceding the image in a sequence, as mentioned at paragraphs 9 and 10, noting that as items are removed for scanning, an image is taken and stored;
wherein the anomaly data includes the image and the selected plurality of the images, i.e., noting step (220) in figure 2, for example.
Regarding Claim 8, Thomas discloses
further comprising:
associating a transaction indicator with the anomaly data; and
outputting the transaction indicator, as mentioned at paragraph 24, which states as follows.
[0024] During the self-checkout transaction, the POS terminal 102 may update a list of items included in the self-checkout transaction as the user 170 adds or removes items from the bagging area 130 or shopping cart 160. The POS terminal 102 may also provide guidance (e.g., instructions) to the user 170 via the display system 105. The user 170 may request assistance via inputs to the POS terminal 102 (e.g., touch inputs to the input device 115).
[0025] The self-checkout transaction may be monitored by one or more cameras disposed in the environment 190. For example, in some embodiments, an overhead camera 172 is mounted at the top of an enclosure of the self-checkout system 100 so its field-of-view (FOV) includes the self-checkout system 100 (including the shopping cart 160). That way, the camera 172 can capture images (as well as video) of the user 170 moving items onto and over the item scanner 110-2 and/or the user 170 using item scanner 110-2 to scan items 165 within the shopping cart 160. In some embodiments, the item scanners 110 may include integrated cameras. For example, the item scanner 110-1 (e.g. handheld scanner) and/or the item scanner 110-2 (e.g., flatbed scanner) may include an integrated camera that captures images (and/or video) of items being scanned.
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 11, see the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 13, see the rejection of Claim 3, above.
Regarding Claim 14, see the rejection of Claim 4, above.
Regarding Claim 16, see the rejection of Claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 17, see the rejection of Claim 7, above.
Regarding Claim 18, see the rejection of Claim 8, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2026/0017634 A1) in view of Birnie et al (US 11,462,083 B2)
Regarding Claims 2, 5, 12 and 15, Thomas teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 2, Thomas does not expressly teach
wherein determining the location of the unscanned item within the cart includes determining, based on a position of the unscanned item within the image, one of a set of predefined portions of the cart containing the unscanned item.
Regarding Claim 2, Thomas does not expressly teach, but Birnie teaches
wherein determining the location of the unscanned item within the cart includes determining, based on a position of the unscanned item within the image, one of a set of predefined portions of the cart, i.e., bag/basket (191), as illustrated in figure 2 and as mentioned at col. 5, lines 17-21, containing the unscanned item, as mentioned at col. 4, lines 18-46, col. 5, lines 26-38, col. 6, lines 58-65 and col. 8, lines 4-32.
Regarding Claim 2, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein determining the location of the unscanned item within the cart includes determining, based on a position of the unscanned item within the image, one of a set of predefined portions of the cart, as taught by Birnie, in Thomas’ computing device for the purpose of more accurately auditing each transaction for theft by including location determination information of the cart.
Regarding Claim 5, see the rejection of Claim 2, above.
Regarding Claim 12, see the rejection of Claim 2, above.
Regarding Claim 15, see the rejection of Claim 2, above.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2026/0017634 A1) in view of Perrucci et al (US 2023/0130735 A1)
Regarding Claims 9, 10, 19 and 20, Thomas teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 9, Thomas does not expressly teach
further comprising:
receiving an audit request including the transaction indicator;
retrieving the anomaly data; and
providing the retrieved anomaly data for presentation on a display.
Regarding Claim 9, Thomas does not expressly teach, but Perrucci teaches
further comprising:
receiving an audit request, as mentioned at paragraph 41, mentioning in the last sentence “[t]he video and transaction data may be retained for auditing and/or further analyzing, studying, monitoring, and detecting of improvements in recognizing risk or assessment need situations within the store”, including the transaction indicator, as mentioned at paragraphs 30, 74 and 75, mentioning a transaction identifer;
retrieving the anomaly data, i.e., behavior identifiers, facial features, and objects/items in carts as mentioned in paragraphs 25 and 53, for example; and
providing the retrieved anomaly data for presentation on a display, as mentioned at paragraphs 14 and 25, for example.
Regarding Claim 9, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided further comprising:
receiving an audit request including the transaction indicator;
retrieving the anomaly data; and
providing the retrieved anomaly data for presentation on a display, as taught by Perrucci, in Thomas’ computing device for the purpose of more accurately auditing and tracking each transaction for theft by including location determination information of the cart.
Regarding Claim 10, Thomas discloses
wherein providing the retrieved anomaly data includes:
controlling the display (105) to present an image of the cart and an overlay including the anomaly data, as mentioned at paragraphs 16, 24, 27, 29 and 30.
Regarding Claim 19, see the rejection of Claim 9, above.
Regarding Claim 20, see the rejection of Claim 10, above.
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner should there be any questions about this rejection or in an endeavor to explore potential amendments or potential allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alameh ‘104 is cited as teaching identifying items in a shopping cart (104) and determining location of items and customers/users (108) throughout the facility in a server based network (122) as illustrated in figure 1, for example.
Carter ‘013 is cited as teaching identifying items in a shopping cart (30) and determining the location of them throughout the store facility as illustrated in figure 1c, for example.
Maron ‘044 is cited as teaching identifying items (402a-402n) in a shopping cart (104) and determining the location of them throughout the store facility as illustrated in figures 1-7 using cameras/imaging sensors (228, 236) for example.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY ALAN SHAPIRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday generally between 8:30AM and 6:30PM.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/JEFFREY A SHAPIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights