CTNF 18/890,951 CTNF 74509 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claims 1-12 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because each of these claims is a method claim. Claims 17-20 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the recitations of “memory”, “processor” and “program code” provide sufficient structure to perform all claimed limitations. Claims 13-16 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because each of these claim is an article of manufacture claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claim 1 as a presentative claim, the 101 analysis is presented below. Step 1: It is noted that claim 1 recites a method which is a process. Thus, claim 1 is directed to one of statutory categories of invention. Step 2A Prong 1: Limitations “determining…first time”, “in response…the discriminator”, “computing…100”, “determining that S1…the discriminator”, “computing a score S2…1000”, “determining that S2….100” are interpreted as mathematical calculation. Thus, these limitations fall into the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong 2: It is noted that claim does include additional elements (i)“receiving…moving object”, (ii)“mitigating…the process” and (iii) “RNN” and “AGAN”. With regard to (i), the additional element is nothing more than data gathering and thus insignificantly pre-solution activity. With regard to (ii), the additional element is nothing more than post-solution activity and thus insignificant. With regard to (iii), the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer and they do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. Thus, these additional elements do not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: It is noted that claim does include additional elements as pointed in Step 2A Prong 2 above. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible. Claim 13 recites a manufacture and claim 17 recites an apparatus so each of these claims falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that each of these claims recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated herein. It is also noted that claim 13 recites additional elements “storage device”, “program code” and “computer” and claim 17 recites addition elements “storage device”, “program code”, and “processor”. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer. The claims do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 13 and 17 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The advanced statements as applied to claims 1, 13 and 17 are incorporated hereinafter. Regarding claims 2-11, 14-16, and 18-20, it is noted that each of these claims does not add any additional elements that would make it statutory. Thus, each of these claims 2 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claims 13-16, it is noted that each of these claim recites “one or more computer readable hardware storage device” which is not define what it is referred to per instant specification. Thus, in view of BRI, such device is interpreted to cover forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter); and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 , 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). The examiner suggests an amendment to the claim to recite “a non-transitory computer readable hardware device” to limit the scope to only the statutory media in order to meet 35 U.S.C. 101 requirements. Any amendment to claim and/or specification should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations “wherein the fraudulent activity is configured to result in a discrepancy in a transaction amount representing a price of the object, and wherein said mitigating the abnormality comprises: adjusting, during the self-checkout, the transaction amount to eliminate the discrepancy; and auto-charging, during the self-checkout, the adjusted transaction amount to a customer associated with the object during the process” . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chan et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0285856 Al) teaches an AI system for performing video analytics and image process for monitoring real-time video feed for abnormal detection (fig. 3b). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM. 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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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. DMD 5/2026 /DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/890,951 Page 2 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/890,951 Page 3 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/890,951 Page 4 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/890,951 Page 5 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/890,951 Page 6 Art Unit: 2662
Prosecution Insights