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 1-20 filed September 18, 2024 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 1-20 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 1-16 are directed to a system, and claims 17-20 are directed to a method, all of which are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1, 10, and 17 recite an abstract idea of transaction processing with object recognition.
The independent claims 1, 10, and 17 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
… and positioned to capture images of merchandise items in a merchandise storage space of the…;
… and configured to read merchandise codes from merchandise items; and
… configured to:
perform object recognition to recognize a merchandise item based on visual features of the merchandise item depicted in an image acquired by…;
when a merchandise code is read by… register the merchandise item identified by the merchandise code in a sales transaction; and
when the merchandise item is recognized by the object recognition, register the merchandise item in the sale transaction unless the merchandise item recognized by the object
recognition is the same merchandise item most recently registered in the sales transaction when the merchandise code was read by the...
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, transaction processing with object recognition 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 transaction processing with object recognition with generally recited computer elements such as a camera, cart, processor, and code reader, 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 transaction processing with object recognition. 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, cart, processor, and code reader, 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, 11, and 18, although these claims recite a generally recited processor and code reader, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of transaction processing with object recognition, 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 claims 2, 11, and 18, although these claims recite a generally recited processor and code reader, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of transaction processing with object recognition, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claims 3, 12, and 19, although these claims recite a generally recited display screen and cart, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of transaction processing with object recognition, 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 4, 6, 7, and 14, although these claims recite a generally recited display screen, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of transaction processing with object recognition, 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 5, 13, and 20, although these claims recite a generally recited display screen, cart, and code reader, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of transaction processing with object recognition, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Regarding dependent claims 8 and 15, although these claims recite a generally recited processor, display screen, and code reader, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of transaction processing with object recognition, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
16. Regarding dependent claim 9, although this claim recites a generally recited display screen, cart, and processor, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of transaction processing with object recognition, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
17. Regarding dependent claim 16, although this claim recites a generally recited display screen, wireless interface, and point of sale server, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of transaction processing with object recognition, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
18. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Examiner Notes
19. Claims 1-20 are novel and unobvious over the prior art, however, there remains a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The Examiner suggests incorporating dependent claims 4 (dependent on 2 and 3) and 6 (dependent on 5) and 8 together into the independent claims. The Examiner suggests incorporating how the object recognition is done. 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.
20. After further search and consideration, the most pertinent U.S. prior art was found to be Naito et al (US 2022/0261877), Katsumura (US 2016/0086148), and Fukuda (US 2015/0193759). Fukuda (US 2015/0193759) is directed to an object recognition device. Katsumura (US 2016/0086148) is directed to a merchandise item registration method. Naito et al (US 2022/0261877) is directed to a merchandise registration device. Meanwhile, Blau (Supermarket’s futuristic outlet, NPL) was found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art, and is directed to a futuristic supermarket.
21. However, both the most pertinent U.S. prior art and NPL fail to disclose all of the limitations particularly:
when the merchandise item is recognized by the object recognition, register the merchandise item in the sale transaction unless the merchandise item recognized by the object
recognition is the same merchandise item most recently registered in the sales transaction when the merchandise code was read by the code reader.
22. No prior art cited here or in any previous Office Action neither fully anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter present in the independent claims, either alone or in combination. The limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed in the application, are novel and unobvious.
Conclusion
23. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Blau (Supermarket’s futuristic outlet, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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