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 Amendment
All pending claims 1-8, 12 and 13 filed March 20, 2026 are examined in this final office action.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101-Subject Matter Eligibility
Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Note that the independent claims merely recite “obtain(ing) the product information of the withdrawn product through an artificial neural network model trained using supervised learning to input the product image and output the product information of the input product image”. The independent claims do not recite any technical details regarding its use or model training or training data to “…. input the product image and output the product information of the input product image”.
Even if the specification discloses some technically inventive aspect of a machine learning model, those aspects need to be recited in the claims in order to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed March 20, 2026 with respect rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Rejections are withdrawn.
Recommendation
Please consider scheduling a telephonic interview via Automatic Interview Request (AIR). Direct conversation may be more helpful in resolving office action issues.
Drawings
New corrected drawing in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Fig. 7 depicts reference character 701 twice for two different elements. The product recognition model should be labeled 702:
[PGPUB excerpt: 0172] Referring to FIG. 7, the processor 180 can input a product image 701 into a product recognition model 702 and obtain product information 703 output by the product recognition model 702.
The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to either a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Groupings of abstract ideas include: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
Fundamental economic principles or practices,
Commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions).
Mathematical Concepts
Mathematical relationships
Mathematical formulas
Mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
Step 1
In the instant case, claim 13 is directed to a process. Analysis of claim 13 applies to analysis of claims 1-8 and 12.
Step 2A Revised (First Prong)
Determine whether claim 13 is directed to a judicial exception. Elements of an abstract idea are underlined. See Analysis.
Step 2A Revised (Second Prong)
Determine whether claim 13 has additional elements (in italics) integrated into a practical application:
a) requires an additional element or a combination of elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manger that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; and
b) uses the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
See Analysis.
Step 2B (Revised)
In Step 2B, evaluate whether claim 13 recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept that adds significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Analysis.
Analysis
In Claim 13:
A method of recommending product, comprising:
storing user health information;
receiving a product image in which at least one product is captured in a refrigerator;
obtaining at least one product information based on the product image;
generating a stock list for products stored in the refrigerator based on the product information;
determining a user-preferred product based on a change in stock quantity of each of at least one product included in the stock list; and
“determining whether the user-preferred product is a subscription available product” and recommending the user-preferred product as a subscription product if the user- preferred product is determined a subscription available product.
wherein the product information includes category information, product name information and nutritional information,
wherein the method further comprising: determining a withdrawn product from the refrigerator based on the stock list,
obtaining at least one product information comprises:
obtaining the product information of the withdrawn product through an “artificial neural network model trained using supervised learning to input the product image” and output the product information of the input product image, and
wherein the method further comprising:
determining nutritional content having a negative effect on a user's health by comparing the user health information with the nutritional information of the withdrawn product,
if a health product containing fewer nutritional content having the negative effect than the withdrawn product exists in the refrigerator, providing a notification indicating existence of the health product, and
if the health product does not exist in the refrigerator, providing a purchasing interface including a site link for purchasing the health product.
Claim 13 executes methods that are directed to abstract ideas comprising processes that can be executed by a human while following a procedure that organizes human activity related to commercial interactions using conventional computing elements as disclosed in the instant specification.
No evidence of an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
No evidence exists in the instant specification or claims of a particular machine.
No evidence exists of a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
The claim does not go beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g. processor, device.
Note that the independent claims merely recite “obtain(ing) the product information of the withdrawn product through an artificial neural network model trained using supervised learning to input the product image and output the product information of the input product image”. The independent claims do not recite any technical details regarding its use or model training or training data to “…. input the product image and output the product information of the input product image”.
Even if the specification discloses some technically inventive aspect of a machine learning model, those aspects need to be recited in the claims in order to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 13 does not recite additional elements that amount to inventive concepts that are “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. “determining whether the user-preferred product is a subscription available product” relies on conventional computer processing functions. Courts have routinely found conventional computer processing functions (e.g. sending/receiving data, formatting data, storing data, retrieving data, manipulating data, calculating, searching data, displaying data, organizing data) insignificant to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. As such, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea across a generic computer network which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
The elements of the instant process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the steps when each is taken alone. That is, the steps involved in the recited process undertake their roles in performance of their activities according to their generic functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the examiner concludes there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1-8, 12 and 13 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Closest US Patent/US Pre-Grant Publication
Kim et al., US 2020/0327601 recited in paper #20251212 mailed December 23, 2025, is the closest prior art.
Closest Non-Patent Literature
NBCNews.com, PTO-892 Item U considered and cited December 23, 2025, is the closest non-patent literature. "Samsung’s Family Hub refrigerator is the electronics giant's latest smart appliance,” discloses: People will be able to order groceries directly from a new Samsung smart refrigerator. The Family Hub refrigerator, unveiled at the CES gadget show in Las Vegas, will let users order groceries via an app on the refrigerator's screen. The app's made in partnership with MasterCard, though you can use any debit or credit card to pay.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Staveley, US 2018/0053440, “Systems and Methods for Using a Smart Refrigerator to Implement Accountability Measures Associated with Intake Objectives,” discloses: [0003] In one aspect, a smart refrigerator is provided. The smart refrigerator includes a processor in communication with a memory and a user interface. The processor is programmed to receive user input of a nutritional objective from a user via the user interface, and receive user input of a grocery order including a plurality of grocery items via the user interface. The processor is also programmed to retrieve nutritional information associated with the plurality of grocery items, and compile a nutritional profile for the user from the retrieved nutritional information. The processor is further configured to compare the nutritional profile to the nutritional objective to determine whether the user has met the nutritional objective, and release, when the user has met the nutritional objective, a reward to the user.
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 ROBERT M POND whose telephone number is (571)272-6760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM-6:30 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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ROBERT M POND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688 May 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights