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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to initially filed application dated 10/03/2024, claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined in this reply.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-20 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
In regard to claims 1-20 as indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Representative claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method comprising: receiving a set of data from a plurality of sensors coupled to a shopping cart, wherein the set of data describe position information of an item within a storage area of the shopping cart; identifying a location of the item within the storage area based on the set of data; obtaining information related to the item by capturing one or more images of the item through a camera coupled to the shopping cart; identifying the item by applying an image recognition neural network to the one or more captured images of the item and the location of the item; and processing payment information of the item based on the identifying of the item.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “sensors, shopping cart, camera, and IRNN”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “sensors, shopping cart, camera, and IRNN”, the above italicized limitations in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites 4 additional elements – “sensors, shopping cart, camera, and IRNN”. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “sensors, shopping cart, camera, and IRNN” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background and specification does not provide any indication that the “sensors, shopping cart, camera, and IRNN” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0330196 A1 to Chaubard (“Chaubard”)
In regards to claims 1, 11, and 20, Chaubard discloses the following limitations:
A method comprising: receiving a set of data from a plurality of sensors coupled to a shopping cart, wherein the set of data describe position information of an item within a storage area of the shopping cart; (see at least Chaubard Abstract “portable checkout unit automatically generates training data for an automatic checkout system as a customer collects items in a store. A customer uses an item scanner of portable checkout unit to generate a virtual shopping list of items collected in the shopping cart. When the customer adds a new item to the shopping cart or on some regular interval, the portable checkout unit captures images of the items contained by the shopping cart” ¶ 0020 “For example, the image labeling module 180 may use pressure sensor data, motion sensor data, depth sensor data, or RFID sensor data to determine where in the shopping cart the item was placed”)
identifying a location of the item within the storage area based on the set of data; obtaining information related to the item by capturing one or more images of the item through a camera coupled to the shopping cart; (see at least Chuaubard ¶¶ 0006 “The portable checkout may detect an item that is added to the shopping cart using a camera or one or more sensors that detect that a change in inventory has occurred inside the shopping cart”; 0018 “Each camera attached to the shopping cart or hand-held basket may capture a single image or a series of images. In some embodiments, the image labeling module 180 instructs the one or more cameras to capture images of the contents of the shopping cart or hand-held basket when sensors on the shopping cart or hand-held basket detect that the contents of the shopping cart have changed. For example, the image labeling module 180 may instruct the one or more cameras to capture images when some combination of pressure, motion, depth, or RFID sensors on the shopping cart detect a change in the contents of the shopping cart”)
identifying the item by applying an image recognition neural network to the one or more captured images of the item and the location of the item; and (see at least Figure 3 and ¶¶ 0021 “In some embodiments, the image labeling module 180 uses the previous positions of bounding boxes to generate new bounding boxes. For example, the image labeling module 180 may determine that an item in the shopping cart did not move when the new item was added to the cart, and thus may determine that the bounding box for the item should be near the location of a previously-determined bounding box for the item. In some embodiments, the image labeling module 180 generates bounding boxes that identify the positions of items within the images captured by the cameras attached to the shopping cart without identifying the item contained by each bounding box. The image labeling module 180--may then pair the generated bounding boxes with previously-generated bounding boxes to identify the items contained by newly-generated bounding boxes. The item identifier for the item contained by the previously-generated bounding boxes may be associated with the newly-generated bounding box that is paired with the previously-generated bounding box. In some embodiments, the bounding boxes are paired using a pairing algorithm such as the Intersection over Union algorithm or the Mutual Information algorithm” ¶ 0025 “An automated checkout system trained using the training data received from the portable checkout unit can identify items placed in the shopping cart in real time using the cameras attached to the shopping cart. The automated checkout system can generate a virtual shopping list based on items identified in the shopping cart using images from the cameras attached to the shopping cart and any sensor data captured by sensors attached to the shopping cart”; 0017 “When the POS system receives the shopping list identifier, the POS system retrieves the virtual shopping list from the store system 130”)
processing payment information of the item based on the identifying of the item. (see at least Chaubard ¶ 0016 “In some embodiments, when the customer is ready to checkout from the store, the customer can select a checkout option presented by the portable checkout unit 110 and, in response, the portable checkout unit 110 initiates the transaction for the customer to check out of the store. In some embodiments, the customer checks out of the store without going to a POS system. For example, the customer may use a payment interface 170 provided by the portable checkout unit 110 to pay for the items in their virtual shopping list. The payment interface 170 may include a magnetic card reader, an EMV reader, or an NFC scanner to receive payment information from the customer. Payment information can include credit card information, debit card information, bank account information, or peer-to-peer payment service information. The portable checkout unit 110 transmits payment information received from the customer to the store system 130 to execute the checkout transaction”)
In regards to claims 2 and 12, Chaubard discloses the following limitations:
training the image recognition neural network using the set of data obtained from the plurality of sensors. (see at least Chaubard ¶ 0007 “The portable checkout unit generates training data based on the identified portions of the images. In some embodiments, the generated training data includes pairings of bounding boxes with item identifiers. The portable checkout unit may store the generated training data locally or may transmit the generated training data to a store system for storage; and ¶ 0022: The image labeling module 180 transmits the labeled image data to the store system 140 for storage or use in training an automatic checkout system for use in the store. The image labeling module 180 may also transmit additional training data to store system 130”)
In regards to claims 3 and 13, Chaubard discloses the following limitations:
determining weight information related to the item based on the set of data from the plurality of sensors; and identifying the item based on the determined weight information. (see at least ¶ 0020 “For example, the image labeling module 180 may use pressure sensor data, motion sensor data, depth sensor data, or RFID sensor data to determine where in the shopping cart the item was placed”)
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0330196 A1 to Chaubard (“Chaubard”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0052555 A1 to Macintosh (“Macintosh”).
In regards to claims 4 and 14, Chaubard does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the plurality of sensors and components comprise at least one sensor configured to: determining shape information related to the item based on the set of data from the plurality of sensors; and identifying the item based on the determined shape information.
The Examiner provides Macintosh to teach the following limitations:
wherein the plurality of sensors and components comprise at least one sensor configured to: determining shape information related to the item based on the set of data from the plurality of sensors; and identifying the item based on the determined shape information. (see at least Macintosh Figure 6, ¶¶ 0091, 0133, and 0159 “Camera 16 generates imagery in which each patch is depicted with a particular size, shape and position within the image frame”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Chaubard the teachings of Macintosh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 5 and 15, Chaubard teaches using motion sensor data for determining item placement in the cart and identification see at least ¶ 0019, however Chaubard does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
further comprising triangulating motion and incline information of the shopping cart based on the set of data from the plurality of sensors, and identifying the item based on the triangulated motion and incline information.
The Examiner provides Macintosh to teach the following limitations:
further comprising triangulating motion and incline information of the shopping cart based on the set of data from the plurality of sensors, and identifying the item based on the triangulated motion and incline information. (see at least Macintosh ¶ 0122 “plenoptic information...tilt angle”, and ¶ 0085 motion blur)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Chaubard the teachings of Macintosh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 6-9 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0330196 A1 to Chaubard (“Chaubard”), in view of United States Patent No. 10,192,087 B2 to Davis (“Davis”),
In regards to claims 6 and 16, Chaubard does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
determining location information related to the shopping cart based on the set of data from the plurality of sensors; and identifying the item based on the location information related to the shopping cart.
The Examiner provides Davis to teach the following limitations:
determining location information related to the shopping cart based on the set of data from the plurality of sensors; and identifying the item based on the location information related to the shopping cart. (Davis discloses a system and method of identifying items in a shopping cart by detecting an item being placed into a cart with a camera or weight sensor, and using location data to help determine the item that was placed in the cart. see at least col. 32 line 62 – col. 33 line 6)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Chaubard the teachings of Davis since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 7 and 17, Chaubard does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
identifying a set of candidate items based on the location information; and calculating a score for each of the set of candidate items based on the one or more images.
The Examiner provides Davis to teach the following limitations:
identifying a set of candidate items based on the location information; (Davis discloses using location data to help determine a set of items for which the detected item is part of based on the location where the cart was at time of item take. see at least Claim 1, and col. 32 line 40 – col. 33 line 6)
calculating a score for each of the set of candidate items based on the one or more images. (Davis discloses calculating a confidence score based on input to the decision module and refining the confidence score until an item is deduced. see at least Figure 6 and Col. 33 line 22 – line 27; Col. 34 lines 46 – 53)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Chaubard the teachings of Davis since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 8 and 18, Chaubard does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
identifying items within a threshold distance of the shopping cart based on the location information.
The Examiner provides Davis to teach the following limitations:
identifying items within a threshold distance of the shopping cart based on the location information. (Davis discloses using data that is within a determined distance to the shopper to determine which item was taken, such as using the store layout to determine where the user was when the item was taken and in the negative with lack of evidence of where the shopper was not. see at least Col. 32 line 38 – Col. 33 line 33)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Chaubard the teachings of Davis since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 9 and 19, Chaubard does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein identifying items within the threshold distance of the shopping cart comprises: accessing item layout information of an area around the shopping cart.
The Examiner provides Davis to teach the following limitations:
wherein identifying items within the threshold distance of the shopping cart comprises: accessing item layout information of an area around the shopping cart. (Davis discloses using location data to help determine a set of items for which the detected item is part of based on the location where the cart was at time of item take. see at least col. 32 line 40 – col. 33 line 6)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Chaubard the teachings of Davis since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0330196 A1 to Chaubard (“Chaubard”), in view of United States Patent No. 10,192,087 B2 to Davis (“Davis”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0025412 A1 to Chaubard (“Chaubard2”).
In regards to claim 10, Chaubard does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the location information comprises global positioning system data.
The Examiner provides Chaubard2 to teach the following limitations:
wherein the location information comprises global positioning system data. (Chaubard2 teaches determining item takes based on images and location information, specifically discloses location data of the image/shopper is based on a GPS location. see at least Chaubard2 Abstract and ¶ 0025)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Chaubard the teachings of Chaubard2 since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, 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.
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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627