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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 15, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1 and 16 have been amended. Now, claims 1-20 remain pending.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner would like to note that the limitation of “selectively resizing the captured data before performing inference”, is directed to resizing the captured images and not resizing just the object. The resizing being performed is actually resizing the whole image.
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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1 (exact language used) 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
configured to:
detect an object from the captured data, and if a size of the detected object is smaller than a predetermined size;
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;
transmit, the seat occupancy status data and the customer appearance inference data at a first time interval; and
transmit the customer behavior inference data and the menu sales estimation data at a second time interval longer than the first time interval,
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.
5. The above-recited limitations obtain customer information to utilize this information in the curation of a cafe. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claims 1 and 16 do recite additional elements:
A camera,
A memory,
A processor,
Selectively resize the captured data before performing inference,
A first inference model,
A second inference model,
An external server,
An external processor.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“A camera”, “A memory”, “A processor, “Selectively resize the captured data before performing inference”, “A first inference model”, “A second inference model”, “An external server”, ”An external processor”,) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving, capture, output, store, detect, process, transmit). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 50-51, 58, 62, 66, and 83 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and 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 abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and 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 abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claim 16 is parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent claims
Regarding Claim 3
Claim 3 sets forth:
infers the seat occupancy location by comparing a person bounding box with a seat bounding box.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of obtain customer information to utilize this information in the curation of a cafe. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)). While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “the processor”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, dependent claims 2, 6, 17, and 18 recite a first inference model and an object detection model, and the processor, claims 4 and 5 recite a seat determination module, claims 7 and 19 recite the second inference model, 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. These recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, and the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” characterization is improper, that the amended claims integrate any alleged exception into a practical application, and that the claims recite significantly more than any alleged exception.
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 and selectively resize the captured data before performing inference, (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 a server) 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.
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, selectively resize the captured data before performing inference, and a first and second inference model, an external server, an external processor. The camera, the memory, the processor, selectively resize the captured data before performing inference, and first and second inference models, an external server, an external processor are recited at a high-level of generality (see Spec. Para. 0050-0051, 0058, 0062, 0066 and 0083) such that the claims are directed to utilizing already developed tools. 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.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
STATUS MONITORING USING MACHINE LEARNING AND MACHINE VISION (US 20210027485 A1) teaches image data representing a monitored area is obtained. Input data based on the image data is provided to one or more machine learning models trained to detect different properties of the monitored area. Output of the one or more machine learning models is received. The output of the one or more machine learning models is evaluated to detect a condition present in the monitored area. Output is provided indicating the detected condition present in the monitored area.
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
Prosecution Insights