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 1-19, and 24 are currently pending and have been examined in this Final Rejection. Claims 1, and 12 have been amended.
Priority
Application 18/838,663 filed 08/15/2024 claims priority to 371 of PCT/CN2022/113608 filed 08/19/2022, and CN202210148355.X filed 02/17/2022.
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 1-19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-19 and 24 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, 12, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method for verifying the authenticity of a merchant based on street view images. For Claims 1, 12, and 24 the limitations of (Claim 1 being representative):
obtaining, from the merchant information platform, merchant location information, a merchant name, and a merchant storefront image for verifying authenticity of the merchant on the […] merchant information platform;
calculating a translation scale based on a pair of randomly selected reference images I1 and I2 containing a common area and a distance between respective shooting positions of the reference images I1 and I2, where the translation scale is used to translate coordinates of an image acquisition point;
obtaining, based on merchant location information obtained from the merchant information platform, a first street view image corresponding to the merchant location information from an external street view image database of the street view image system, and conducting a feature point matching between the merchant storefront image obtained from the merchant information platform and the first street view image, and translating the first street view image along a road direction based on the translation scale to obtain coordinates of the image acquisition point;
obtaining, based on the coordinates of the image acquisition point and from an external street view image database, a second street view image corresponding to the coordinates of the image acquisition point […] for street view roaming;
cropping a portion of image from the second street view image to filter out redundant images other than key feature points, based on a matching feature point set in the merchant storefront image and the second street view image and minimum horizontal and vertical coordinates associated with the feature point set, to obtain a third street view image;
conducting a feature point matching between the merchant storefront image obtained from the merchant information platform and the third street view image to calculate merchant image similarity, and determining whether the merchant image similarity reaches a specified threshold, where in the case that it is determined that the merchant image similarity reaches the specified threshold, proceed with the following steps; and
recognizing a merchant name from the third street view image and matching it with the merchant name obtained from the merchant information platform to calculate merchant name similarity, and determining whether the merchant name similarity reaches a specified threshold, where in the case that the merchant name similarity reaches the specified threshold, merchant authenticity verification is successful for accessing the merchant information platform.
The above limitations are reciting the concept of verifying the authenticity of a merchant based on the location, name, storefront image from a platform, and street view images to verify that there are no discrepancies between registered information. This is being done to ensure business information is not mixed or misreported. The claim elements that define the abstract idea are considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities. Merchant authenticity is a process by which one can mitigate risk. Mitigating risk using data related to the merchant location is a concept that falls into the category of being a certain method of organizing human activities. A human being can look at different photos, crop and cut images, and determine if the images match to the actual merchant location. For the above reasons, the above noted claimed elements are considered to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activities that is reciting the act of risk mitigation. The steps are being taken to verify a merchant photo and location to ensure that they are not forged, and are what defines the abstract idea.
Additionally, the examiner notes that for the claimed steps/functions that define the abstract idea, a human being can look at photos and determine if they match a store front image and address location. A human being such as a customer or employee of the merchant can stand in front of the merchant and look at photos, cut printed photos to only show the merchant, and verify a match. Absent the recitation to the use of a computer in the form of the reading and viewing system, the claimed step/functions can be performed by a person, and would constitute claiming human activity. A person can also manually verify a location of a merchant based off of photos, and location. The claimed elements that define the abstract idea are defining human activity. Accordingly, Claims 1, 12, and 24 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of an online [merchant information platform (Claim 1, Claim 12, and Claim 24), street view image system (Claim 1, Claim 12, and Claim 24), A computer-readable medium storing a computer program (Claim 24), and processor (Claim 12, and Claim 24), that implements the identified abstract idea. The additional elements in the claims include “an automatic” (which is interpreted to be the equivalent to “using a computer”). These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, and 12, are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional a street view image system (Claim 1, Claim 12, and Claim 24), A computer-readable medium storing a computer program (Claim 24), and processor (Claim 12, and Claim 24), to perform the noted 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 (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claims 1, 12, and 24 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2-11, and 13-19 are similarly rejected and as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 12, and 24 as discussed above, as well as representing mathematical concepts. The Examiner notes that “Mathematical Concepts” includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a numerical formula or equation it will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes. Claim(s) 2, and 14 merely describe(s) the reference images I1 and I2 containing a calibration point and calculating the translation scale based on two reference images. Claim(s) 3 and 15 merely describe(s) obtaining a search range if the image acquisition point from the merchant location from a merchant information platform. Claim(s) 4, and 16 merely describe(s) translating the first street view image along the road direction to obtain the coordinates of the image acquisition point and determining if the coordinates are within the search range of the image acquisition point. Claim(s) 5, and 17 merely describe(s) obtaining latitude and longitude range and merchant list corresponding to the merchant location information platform, where the search range is represented as (min (cxi), min (cyi)) to (max (cxi), max (cyi)), claim(s) 6, and 18 merely describe(s) setting shooting position of the first street view image to be (sx, sy), obtaining a matching feature point set P={p1, p2,…, pn} from the merchant storefront image and first street view image, where pi is the horizonal coordinate of the matching feature point, calculating a mean value L of the differences between a center position, f of the merchant storefront image and the matching feature point set P in the case that the number of feature points n in the matching feature point set P is greater than a threshold m, and setting L as the minimum movement distance I in the case that n is less than the threshold m, and setting L as the minimum movement distance I in the case that n is less than the threshold m; and setting coordinates of the image acquisition point as N, where N is (sx+Lkcos (t), sy+kLsin (t)),wherein, k is the translation scale, and t is an included angle between street direction and longitude line, where the included angle t is represented by the following equation: t=argtan ((mean (cxi) - min (cxi))/mean (cyi) - min (cyi))). Claim(s) 7, 9 and 19 merely describe(s) the feature matching algorithm including a SIFT algorithm, SURF algorithm, SIFT algorithm, ORB algorithm, FAST algorithm, or Harri algorithm. Claim(s) 8 merely describe(s) cropping a portion of the image from the second street view image to obtain a third street view image by obtaining a matching feature point set Q= {(qx1, qy1), (qx2, qy2), ..., (qxn, qyn)} from the merchant storefront image and the second street view image, where (qxi, qyi) are horizontal and vertical coordinates of the matching feature point; and cropping a portion of image from the second street view image to obtain the third street view image in the way so that upper left and lower right coordinates of the third street view image are:{(min (qxi) - a, min (qyi) - a), (max (qxi)+a, max (qyi)+a)}, where a is a pixel distance, with a value range of 10-100. Therefore claims 2-11, and 13-19 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that under Step 2A, Prong One that the claimed invention does not fall under “certain methods of organizing human activities because ”mitigating risk” is an economic risk” not the risk of information technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite verifying a merchant. If a merchant is not verified, sales could happen elsewhere. A merchant storefront also has a commercial display to allow customers know what the storefront is. Further, the claim recites human activity of determining if there is a match to a storefront and a photo. Therefore, as recited above the claim recite an abstract idea.
The Applicant further argues under Step 2A, Prong Two that the claim is integrated into a practical application because the limitations provide improvements in the technical field of information security/network security technology. Applicant further argues that technical improvements enhance accuracy of image matching, and merchant verification. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of an online [merchant information platform], street view image system, a computer-readable medium storing a computer program, and processor are recited at a high level of generality and do not amount to a practical application that integrates the abstract idea into a specific technical improvement in computer functionality or another technology. The claimed features do not reflect an improvement to the technology used to verify images for merchant verification, but rather use that technology as a tool to perform the abstract analysis. The improvement of enhancing accuracy of image matching, and merchant verification lies within the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(a) states, "Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology." Therefore the claims do not recite significantly more since the claim does not recite any technical improvement in image processing or computer operation, but performs the abstract concept of verifying merchants.
Applicant further references Example 39. Example 39 dealt with an improvement in computer-related technology: automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using specific computer-implemented rules. With regard to McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., No. 2015-1080, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Court cited Diehr, as follows:
“The claims in Diehr, in contrast, were patentable. The claims likewise ‘employed a ‘well-known’ mathematical equation.’ Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Diehr, MCRO, INC. v. BANDAI NAMCO GAMES AMERICA 21 450 U.S. at 177). A computer performed the calculations as part of a broader process for curing rubber, but “the process as a whole [did] not thereby become unpatentable subject matter.’ Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187. Instead, the Court looked to how the claims “used that equation in a process designed to solve a technological problem in ‘conventional industry practice.’’ Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178). When looked at as a whole, ‘the claims in Diehr were patent eligible because they improved an existing technological process, not because they were implemented on a computer.’ Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.” McRO, pg. 21. (Emphasis added)
“When looked at as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques. The claim uses the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 177).” McRO, pg. 27.
Therefore, a determination must be made as to the focus of the claim(s) and whether the claim(s) are drawn to an improvement in computer-related technology whether it be to the operation of a computer or a computer network per se or a set of rules that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. Looking at the limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. In other words, the claims simply require the performance of the abstract idea of verifying merchants on generic computer components using conventional computer activities and unlike McRO, they are not drawn to an improvement in computer-related technology.
The Applicant argues that the Office Action did not consult the Specification and did not consider all limitations as a whole. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the specification was consulted, and MPEP 2106.05(a) states, "After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology." However, given that the additional elements are merely using an online platform, and computer in their ordinary capacity to verify merchants, no such improvement is reflected within the scope of the claims.
Applicant further refers to the Memorandum of 8/4/2025 that states “Examiners are cautioned not to oversimply claim limitations and expand the application of the ‘apply it’ consideration. Moreover, examiners are reminded that the ‘apply it’ consideration often overlaps with the improvements consideration.” This argument is not persuasive because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Applicant further refers to the Ex parte Desjardin where the Specification clearly describes a specific technical problem, as well as the advantages of the claimed invention in solving the problem. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are analogous. In Ex parte Desjardin, the patent eligibility was due to a concrete improvement to the functioning of a machine-learning model, specifically a reduction in system complexity and an improvement in how the computer itself operated. In contrast, the present claims do not recite any improvement to the functioning of a computer, processor, or other technology, rather they utilize generic computing components to perform image analysis, and merchant verification that merely implement an abstract idea on a computer. Based on the updated rejection above and the response presented here, the 101 rejection holds.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights