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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-20 have been amended. Now, claims 1-20 remain pending.
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.
2. Claims 1-20 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. Claims 1 and 16 are drawn to a device and a method each of which is within the four statutory categories. Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
3. Claims 1 and 16 recite, in part, the following elements:
to capture an internal space of the cafe and output captured data comprising images or videos;
to store the captured data; [and]
process the captured data and generate seat occupancy status data and customer appearance inference data for the cafe; and
process the captured data and generate customer behavior inference data and menu sales estimation data for the café,
wherein is configured to utilize based on a characteristic of the data to be generated; and
wherein at least one of the seat occupancy status data, the customer appearance inference data, the customer behavior inference data, and the menu sales estimation data is used for cafe curation.
4. As drafted, these elements represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses monitoring the status inside a café, which is a managing relationships or interactions between people; therefore, the process falls under Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. Accordingly, this Step 2A Prong 1 analysis concludes that claims 1 and 16 recites an abstract idea.
5. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Beyond the limitations which recite the abstract idea, the claim includes the following additional elements: a camera, a memory, a processor, and a first and second inference model. The camera, the memory, the processor, and first and second inference models are recited at a high-level of generality (see Spec. Para. 0050-0051, 0058, 0062, 0066) such that the claims are directed to utilizing an already developed camera and inference model. It encompasses adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
6. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements , when considered individually and in combination, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (in this case, an already developed inference model). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). The claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 16 does not qualify as patent-eligible subject matter.
7. The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application; and performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claims, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and does not provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field; therefore, the claims amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2, 6, 17, and 18 recite a first inference model and an object detection model, and the processor, claim 3 recites a first inference model and the processor, claims 4 and 5 recite a seat determination module, claims 7 and 19 recite the processor, an object detection model, a pose estimation model, claim 8 recites the processor and a pose estimation model, claims 9 and 20 recite the processor and an object detection model, claim 10 recites the processor, a first inference completion signal, a second inference completion signal, the inference data detection module, claim 11 recites the first inference completion signal, the second inference model, claim 12 recites the inference data deletion module, and the second inference completion signal, claim 13 recites an operation control module and a first load sensor, the café monitoring device, the first load sensor, claim 14 recites an operation control module and a first load sensor and a café monitoring device, claim 15 recites the operation control module, the café monitoring device and the first load sensor. Similarly, the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the independent claims are directed to a specific technical improvement in computational resource distribution for monitoring and that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements as outlined above in the current 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection are recited as a tool to apply data implementing a first and second inference model for café curation (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014). As drafted, the claim elements represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses monitoring the status inside a café, which is a managing relationships or interactions between people; therefore, the process falls under Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using a memory and processor) and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology. The method does not improve the computer or technology and can be performed using a generic computer. The newly claimed features are just tools used to perform the steps of the claim. Additionally, the inference functions as claimed is just merely a generic machine learning model.
Questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (incorporated in the 2014 IEG as Steps 2A and 2B), and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and "those that integrate the building blocks into something more…the latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible". This framework found that the claims do tie up the exception. (See the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claims do not recite any unconventional computer functions. The structural elements as claimed are for mere convenience and the recited claim elements constitute methods related to personal behaviors, as well as, activities or behaviors and business relations, i.e. individuals, the process falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. As a result, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is silent on any computer operation and specific technological implementation that would move the claim beyond a general link to a technological environment.
Dependent Claims 2-15 and 17-20 add further limitations to independent claims 1 and 16, which are also directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING RESERVATIONS (US 20170364836 A1) teaches facilitating reservation making or organizing events during specific dates and times in the service industry context, particularly to systems and methods for managing reservations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber Misiaszek whose telephone number is 571-270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30, First Friday Off.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682