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 and 9 and 17 are amended, claims 4 and 12 are cancelled, Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-20 filed June 11, 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 1-3, 5-11, and 13-20 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 1-3 and 5-8 are drawn to a method, claims 9-11 and 13-16 are directed to a system, and claims 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, all of which are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an abstract idea of directional guidance using images, item identifiers, and visual features.
The independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
…;
…;
… configured to:
obtaining an item identifier;
capturing… an image of a portion of a facility;
capturing… a tag identifier from an RFID tag associated with an item disposed in the facility;
in response to determining that the tag identifier is associated with the item identifier, retrieving, based on the item identifier, one or more visual features from… for use in image processing;
detecting from the image a visual feature of the item identifier by perform an object detection operation to identify one or more object boundaries in the image and evaluating the one or more object boundaries for the visual feature;
determining, based on the visual feature, a candidate position of the item and the
RFID tag in the image;
and controlling an output device to present the candidate position.
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, directional guidance using images, item identifiers, and visual features 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 directional guidance using images, item identifiers, and visual features with generally recited computer elements such as a camera, RFID reader, repository, and processor, 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 directional guidance using images, item identifiers, and visual features. 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 a camera, repository, RFID reader, and processor, 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 2-3, 5-6, and 8, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of directional guidance using images, item identifiers, and visual features, 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 claim 7, although this claim recites a generally recited output device, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of directional guidance using images, item identifiers, and visual features, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claims 10, 13, 14, although these claims recite a generally recited computing device, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of directional guidance using images, item identifiers, and visual features, 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 11 and 15-16, although these claims recite a generally recited processor and computing device, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of directional guidance using images, item identifiers, and visual features, 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 18 and 20, although these claims recite a generally recited processor, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of directional guidance using images, item identifiers, and visual features, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leland et al (US 2016/0192125) in view of Ceccon et al (US 2017/0011606) and Krishnamurthy et al (US 2024/0020333).
21. Re Claims 1, 9, 17: Leland discloses comprising:
obtaining an item identifier (see [0027] identifying items);
capturing, via a camera, an image of a portion of a facility (see [0031] images of tag locations);
capturing, via a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, a tag identifier from an
RFID tag associated with an item disposed in the facility (see [0027] identify RFID tags);
and controlling an output device to present the candidate position (see [0038] position);
determining, based on the visual feature, a candidate position of the item and the
RFID tag in the image (see [0038] position).
However, Leland fails to explicitly disclose the following. Meanwhile, Ceccon teaches:
in response to determining that the tag identifier is associated with the item identifier,
retrieving, based on the item identifier, one or more visual features from a repository for use in image processing (see [0027] unique item identifiers for every unique item);
detecting from the image a visual feature of the item identifier by performing an object detection operation to identify one or more object boundaries in the image and evaluating the one or more object boundaries for the visual feature.
From the teaching of Ceccono, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Leland’s displaying location information for RFID tags with Ceccono’s teaching of visual features in order for “… receiving a universally unique item identifier of an item from a tag reader (see Ceccon Abstract).”
However, Leland and Ceccono fail to explicitly disclose the following. Meanwhile, Krishnamurthy teaches:
retrieving, based on the item identifier, one or more visual features from a repository for use in image processing (see [0003] database has thousands of items with features);
performing an object detection operation to identify one or more object boundaries in the image and evaluating the one or more object boundaries for the visual feature (see [0398] boundary of item in image).
From the teaching of Krishnamurthy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Leland’s displaying location information for RFID tags with Ceccono’s teaching of visual features and Krishnamurthy’s teaching of a repository and boundaries in order for “… digital image processing… for selecting an item from a plurality of identified items based on a similarity value (see Krishnamurthy [0002]).”
22. Re Claims 2, 10: However, Leland fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Ceccon teaches wherein the item identifier includes at least one of a stock-keeping unit (SKU) or a global trade item number (GTIN) (see [0029] sku). From the teaching of Ceccono, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Leland’s displaying location information for RFID tags with Ceccono’s teaching of a sku in order for “… receiving a universally unique item identifier of an item from a tag reader (see Ceccon Abstract).”
23. Re Claims 3, 11, 18: Leland discloses wherein determining that the tag identifier is associated with the item identifier includes: obtaining a candidate item identifier based on the tag identifier; and determining that the candidate item identifier matches the item identifier (see [0027] identifying items to which RFID tags are coupled).
24. Re Claims 5, 13, 19: However, Leland fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Ceccon teaches wherein the visual feature is selected from the group consisting of: a color of the item, a dimension of the item, a shape of the item, a color of a receptacle containing the item, a dimension of the receptacle, a shape of the receptacle, a text string, and a category of the item (see [0032, 0049] size, color). From the teaching of Ceccono, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Leland’s displaying location information for RFID tags with Ceccono’s teaching of visual features in order for “… receiving a universally unique item identifier of an item from a tag reader (see Ceccon Abstract).”
25. Re Claims 6, 14: Leland discloses wherein capturing the image is substantially simultaneous with capturing the tag identifier (see [0063] scanning image information for RFID tag).
26. Re Claims 7, 15, 20: Leland discloses wherein controlling the output device to present the candidate position includes: displaying the candidate position overlaid on the image (see [0075] display position).
27. Re Claims 8, 16: Leland discloses displaying the tag identifier with the image and the candidate position (see [0075] display position).
Examiner Notes
28. The Examiner suggests incorporating dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8 (dependent on 7) together into the independent claims. The Examiner suggests including how machine learning is used, and uniquely trained and re-trained. 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
29. Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, the applicant’s amendments regarding the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
a) Response to 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments Step 2A, Prong 1
30. The Examiner respectfully disagrees in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, therefore it is maintained. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of directional guidance using images, item identifiers, and visual features, which falls under commercial or legal interactions, or could also fall under fundamental economic practices. In MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), it describes concepts relating to managing relationships or transactions between people, or satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation, as being under certain methods of organizing human activity. Directional guidance using images, item identifiers, and visual features would fall under sales activities or behaviors and business relations, therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
b) Response to 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments Step 2A, Prong 2
31. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to improving the functioning of the computer/technology/technical field, the claims recite the additional elements of a camera, repository, RFID reader, and processor, and they are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore are merely using computer processing components for directional guidance using visual features, images, and item identifiers. 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 directional guidance using visual features, images, and item identifiers (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.
32. 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).”
33. 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, i.e., the additional elements of a camera, repository, RFID reader, and processor, 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 indicating payment options. The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., directional guidance using visual features, images, and item identifiers, 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.
34. The claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. Claims are directed to an abstract idea of directional guidance using visual features, images, and item identifiers. 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. 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
35. Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that claims 1, 9, and 17 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.
36. 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)).
37. Here the only additional elements recited in claims 1 and 16 beyond the abstract idea are: the additional elements of a camera, repository, RFID reader, and processor, 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.
38. 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.
Conclusion
39. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Francis et al (A Framework to Support E-Commerce Development for People with Visual Impairment, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
40. 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).
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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