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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/05/2025 and 09/27/2024 have been made record of and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “outputter” in claims 1, 8, and 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes (concepts performed in a human mind, including as an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and/or mathematical concepts and calculations). The independent claims 1, 9, and 10 recite a system for monitoring item registration. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claims 1, 9, and 10 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 are directed to a method/system for monitoring item registration.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 comprise mental processes and/or mathematical concepts that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 10, the limitations recite:
detecting a presence of a predetermined item other than items that are put in a container provided in a store; (The step falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because determination of object presence can be performed in the human mind as an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. For example, during checkout process, a cashier could look and determine that there are paper towels on the bottom of a cart.)
detecting a predetermined item registration action, using an image taken of item registration work by a registering person who is registering items; (The step falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because determination of an action can be performed in the human mind as an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. For example, a supervisor could look at image of registration work, and determine if a registration action, such as scanning an item, or moving an item past the register’s scanner, has taken place.)
outputting an alert if the presence of the predetermined item is detected but the predetermined item registration action for the predetermined item is not detected. (The step falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because determining if an item has been properly registered can be performed in the human mind as an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. For example, a supervisor could look at image of registration work, and determine if a registration action, such as scanning an item, or moving an item past the register’s scanner, has taken place.)
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could mentally monitor item registration in a checkout area. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a system and detectors does not take the limitations out of the mental process and/or mathematical concepts groupings. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 disclose insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity, such as issuing an alert based on a determination, and generic computer components such as detectors that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a method/system.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements are routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since independent claims 1, 9, and 10 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claims 1, 9, and 10 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 7-8: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitations fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter (US 2021/0284223 A1), and in further view of Farrow (US 2018/0096567 A1).
Consider claims 1, 9, and 10, Carter discloses a system [claim 10: an item registration monitoring method] comprising:
[claim 9: a first detector configured to detect a presence of a plurality of containers provided in a store (¶73, 142, 167; “The object recognizers can recognize shopping baskets, shopping carts… and merchandise within a shopping basket (which can include an under-basket at the bottom of a shopping cart)”);]
a first detector configured to detect a presence of a predetermined item other than items that are put in a container provided in a store (¶73, 166; “the CVU 1000 (e.g., the image processor 420) implements one or more object recognizers that can crawl through the received data”; ¶167; “The object recognizers can recognize shopping baskets, shopping carts… and merchandise within a shopping basket (which can include an under-basket at the bottom of a shopping cart), presence of an object (e.g., a child or a handbag ) located in a child seat of a cart”);
a second detector configured to detect a predetermined item registration action, using an image taken of item registration work by a registering person who is registering items (¶61, 72; “the CVU can analyze imagery of the checkout lane to determine whether a shopper passed through the lane, interacted with a store checkout attendant or a store payment system, stayed in the lane for a sufficient period of time indicative of the checkout and payment process…, provided payment information, etc.”; ¶162; anti-theft system 400; ¶209-211; “In embodiments in which the system builds a record of data describing the imaged items detected in the cart basket (e.g., number of items detected, product categories of these items, product IDs where products are identifiable, etc. ), the system can compare this record to associated payment/checkout transaction to assess whether the customer has paid for all of the items”); and
[claim 9: an outputter configured to output an alert if the presence of the plurality of containers is detected by the first detector but the predetermined item registration action for the plurality of containers is not detected by the second detector (¶61, 121; alarm; ¶67; basket and under-basket; ¶162; warning; ¶209-210; “If no corresponding payment transaction is found, or if a significant discrepancy is detected (e.g., one or more high price items were detected in the cart but are not included in the partially-matching transaction record), an appropriate anti-theft action can be initiated”)]
an outputter configured to output an alert if the presence of the predetermined item is detected by the first detector but the predetermined item registration action for the predetermined item is not detected by the second detector (¶61, 121; alarm; ¶162; warning; ¶209-210; “If no corresponding payment transaction is found, or if a significant discrepancy is detected (e.g., one or more high price items were detected in the cart but are not included in the partially-matching transaction record), an appropriate anti-theft action can be initiated”).
In related art, Farrow further supports an outputter configured to output an alert if the presence of the predetermined item is detected by the first detector but the predetermined item registration action for the predetermined item is not detected by the second detector (Farrow Example 2 Shopper Forgets about Items in Basket ¶102-111; Examples 6, 7, 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the procedures of the example scenarios of Farrow into the registration monitoring system/method of Carter to improve the monitoring method and specify the alert given based on the determined situation (Farrow Examples 2, 6, 7, 9; Carter ¶72).
Consider claim 4, Carter, as modified by Farrow, discloses the claimed invention wherein the predetermined item is an item placed on a lower tier of a cart carrying the container (Carter ¶167).
Consider claim 5, Carter, as modified by Farrow, discloses the claimed invention wherein the predetermined item is an item held by the registering person (Carter ¶61, 211).
Consider claim 7, Carter, as modified by Farrow, discloses the claimed invention wherein the outputter is configured to output the alert in response to the registering person declaring that the registering person has completed the item registration work (Carter ¶63, 72; 162, 209-211; Farrow ¶102-111).
Claims 2-3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter, in view of Farrow, as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 9-10 above, and in further view of Gotanda (JP2023118460A).
Consider claim 2, Carter, as modified by Farrow, discloses the claimed invention wherein the first detector is configured to detect the presence of the predetermined item using an image taken of the registering person (¶50, 61, 72, 119, 162, 209-210; Farrow Examples 1, 2, 4).
In related art, Gotanda further supports a detector configured to detect the presence of the predetermined item using an image taken of the registering person (Gotanda ¶54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the skeletal estimation of Gotanda into the item registration monitoring method of Carter, as modified by Farrow, to explicitly detect operator interaction with a predetermined item, such as registration, bagging, or leaving (Gotanda ¶54).
Consider claim 3, Carter, as modified by Farrow, discloses the claimed invention wherein the first detector is configured to detect the presence of the predetermined item if the presence of the predetermined item is indicated by the registering person (Carter ¶61, 119, FIG. 19; Farrow Examples 1, 2, 4).
In related art, Gotanda further supports a detector configured to detect the presence of the predetermined item if the presence of the predetermined item is indicated by the registering person (Gotanda ¶44, 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the registration action of Gotanda into the item registration monitoring method of Carter, as modified by Farrow, to explicitly perform registration using a scanner (Gotanda ¶55).
Consider claim 6, Carter, as modified by Farrow, fails to specifically disclose wherein the second detector is configured to detect the predetermined item registration action based on a skeletal recognition process on the registering person.
In related art, Gotanda further supports a detector configured to detect the predetermined item registration action based on a skeletal recognition process on the registering person (Gotanda ¶54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the skeletal estimation of Gotanda into the item registration monitoring method of Carter, as modified by Farrow, to explicitly detect operator interaction with a predetermined item, such as registration, bagging, or leaving (Gotanda ¶54).
Consider claim 8, Carter, as modified by Farrow, discloses the claimed invention further comprising:
a fourth detector configured to detect departure of the registering person from a checkout device that processes checkout (Carter ¶56, 101, 162), wherein
the outputter is configured to output the alert if the (payment) is not detected by the third detector by the time when the fourth detector detects the departure of the registering person (Carter ¶56, 62, 72, 162).
Carter fails to explicitly disclose a third detector configured to detect ejection of a receipt (¶21, 30); and
the outputter is configured to output the alert if the ejection of the receipt is not detected by the third detector by the time when the fourth detector detects the departure of the registering person.
In related art, Gotanda discloses ejection of a receipt (Gotanda ¶21, 30);
output the alert if the ejection of the receipt is (Gotanda ¶105).
Carter discloses multiple methods of determining nonpayment (Carter ¶72, 162). In the case that a shopper has moved through a checkout area and merchandise is still unpaid for, it is inherent that a receipt is not printed (therefore nondetectable), and could therefore signal nonpayment (Carter ¶72, 162). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Gotanda into the item registration monitoring method of Carter, as modified by Farrow, to predictably yield outputting an alert if the ejection of the receipt (payment completion) is not detected before the detection of the departure of the registering person (shopper in self-checkout, or store employee) (Gotanda ¶21, 30). Gotanda further discloses, “When the monitoring device 50 detects that these tickets are left in the printer 13, they may also be treated as lost items and a warning display may be displayed (Gotanda ¶105).”
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2024/0096182 A1 discloses an action detection system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY HYTREK whose telephone number is (703)756-4562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Steve Koziol can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/ASHLEY HYTREK/Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights