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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/10/2026, with respect to claim(s) 1-20, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to obviousness-type double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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 10-13, 15, and 17-20, are 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.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim 10 recites a process/method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process/method, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A prong 1, the claimed monitoring objects and transactions, creating grouping of the objects, correlating transaction data, identifying from a video feed a particular item, determining transaction data correlated with the particular grouping, calculating risk scores, generating map a map steps are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps are processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas in “mental process grouping”, more specifically, related to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or with pen and paper. Claim recites nothing more than the generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking or with pen and paper) i.e., “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis”. For instance, a person or an employee watching/monitoring the video of a physical environment can perform all the steps as claimed mentally and/or with the pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2, The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: rendering the map in real time within an interface on a device operated by or worn by an attendant monitoring the physical environment (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical. Treating claim 10 as a whole, the claim limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception From the claim scope, the claim fail to address any improvement because merely monitoring objects and transactions, creating grouping of the objects, correlating transaction data, identifying from a video feed a particular item, determining transaction data correlated with the particular grouping, calculating risk scores, generating a map is not enough to tie the claim towards the technical improvement. Thus, claim 10 as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Step 2B, The claim include additional elements “an interface on a device”, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 11-13, 15, 17-20:
claims 11-13, 15, 18-20, directly or indirectly depends on claim 10 and does not include anything that is sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the claims 11-13, 15, 18-20 are rejected as the same reason as in claim 10. Furthermore, claim 17, include additional elements “glasses worn by the attendant, an eyepiece attached to a visor worn by the attendant, a tablet operated by the attendant, or a phone operated by the attendant”, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
Claim 14 and 16, objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
