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 .
The following is a non-final, first office action on the merits, in response to application filed 11/4/2024. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for a provisional application filed on 5/4/2021, 8/6/2021, 10/11/2021. The Applicant claims benefit of continuation of 18/2282907 (now Patent 12,165,189), filed 7/31/2023, which is a continuation of 17/817424 (now Patent 11,756,095), filed 8/4/2022, which is in turn a continuation of PCT/US2022/027426 filed on 5/3/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 1/13/2025 cancelled no claim. No Claims were previously cancelled. No new claims are added. No claim has been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Specification
Modifications made to the original specification on 1/13/2025 are acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/3/2025 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claim 1 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform a method….”, which describes a product claim.
However, the corresponding dependent claim 2-18 recites “a method of….” , which is a method claim differ from the product claim recited in independent claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, regardless of a system/apparatus, a method, or a product claim.
The claimed invention (Claims 1-20) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “an idea “of itself”, which have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in new 101 memos of the subject matter eligibility in here (https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility) including 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
Independent claim 100 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to multiple abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and “Mental process”.
Claim 20, Steps of,
obtaining point of sale data from a retail store;
analyzing the point of sale data to identify at least one anomalous transaction;
in response to the identified at least one anomalous transaction, providing information configured to cause capturing of image data from the retail store;
analyzing the image data relating to the at least one anomalous transaction to determine at least one condition associated with the at least one anomalous transaction in the retail store; and
based on the analyzed image data relating to the at least one anomalous transaction, generating an indicator associated with the at least one condition.
fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe the concepts of commercial or legal interactions ( advertising, marketing or behaviors, sales activity; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or/and instructions, for example, based on the analyzed image data relating to the at least one anomalous transaction, generating an indicator associated with the at least one condition).
In addition, claim 20, steps mentioned above also falls within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since these limitation covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, a human being can observe/obtain point of sale (POS) data, can observe/analyze the collected POS data/identify an anomalous transaction, can use an image device to capture an image, can evaluate/analyze captured image data relating to the aberrant/anomalous transaction, can observe/generate an alert/indicator.
Further, Step of (“obtaining…”, “providing …) are considered as “insignificant extra-solution activity” to the judicial exception since they are merely receiving/collecting/providing data.
Independent claim 20, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional element that are significant more than the abstract ideas. In particular, there is no machine/hardware/computer to actually perform the abstract steps mentioned above. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and is simply organized information through human activity or merely mental tasks, and is part of, or a related, judicial exception and does not meaningfully limit the application of the identified judicial exception, and as such does not constitute significantly more.
There is no specificity regarding any technology, just broadly, execute the programming instructions to receive data, analyze data, identify data and generate data. There are no additional elements, for example, hardware processor of a machine to actually perform all of the steps at all. The steps are mainly receiving data, identifying data, analyzing data, and creating indicator or alert. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 20, (step 2B):
There are no additional elements (hardware, machine, computer/server) in claim 20 to actually perform the steps. There is nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Independent claim 1, 19: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent product claim 1 and system claim 19 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claim(s) 20.
Further, the components (i.e. a computer-readable medium, a processor, a processing device, a memory) described in independent claims 1 and 19 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Similarly, as it relates to the computer system claims, the limitations appear to be performed by a generic computing system/device. These components are merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/analyze/identify generate/transmit/send/display information over communication network/internet does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 20).
According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward
information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (evidence required by Berkeimer memo). Further, according to Berkheimer memo 04/19/2018, section III.A.1, “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”.
Applicant’s Specification, [0237--0240] indicate a general-purpose computer perform the instant steps and demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the information processing device (a processor/a memory/a computer) in any computing implementation. In other word, in light of the description in the specification as mentioned above with respect to paras [0237--0240], the Specification demonstrates that the additional elements must be sufficiently well-known. Thus, evidence has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to Berkheimer memo. Therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above steps do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-18, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2-18 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Viewed as a whole, the claims (1-20) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the claims do NOT recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, the claimed invention, as a whole, does not provide 'significantly more' than the abstract idea, and is non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Adato et al. (hereinafter Adato, US 2019/0149725,) in view of Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee, US 2013/0027561).
As per claim 1, 19, 20, Adalo discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions ([0016—0017]) that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform a method for triggering actions in response to point of sales data, a system comprising at least one processing device ([0011, 0012]) and a memory ([0126, 0132]) storing instructions; and a method, comprising:
obtaining point of sale data from a retail store ([0034-35, 0240, 0272, 0326-327]);
analyzing the point of sale data to identify at least one anomalous transaction ( [0034-35, 0126, 0706, 0766-0767, 0773-0775]);
based on the analyzed image data relating to the at least one anomalous transaction, generating an indicator associated with the at least one condition ([0008, 0027, 0127, 0237, 0390, 0663, 0761, 0775]).
However, Adato does not explicitly disclose,
in response to the identified at least one anomalous transaction, providing information configured to cause capturing of image data from the retail store;
analyzing the image data relating to the at least one anomalous transaction to determine at least one condition associated with the at least one anomalous transaction in the retail store;
While Adato teaches providing information configured to cause capturing of image data from the retail store [0166, 0182, 0201, 0223], and analyzing the image data… to determine at least one condition ([0005, 0659-0660, 0663-0664, 0683-0684, 0761]),
Lee teaches using image-based technology to improve retail operations/detect abnormality ([0145, 0170, 0197]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Adato with Lee because the references are directed to automated features for using image-based technology to improve retail operations, which is applicant’s field of endeavor of automated image analysis in retail stores, and because modifying Adato analysis of image and anomalous transaction data by incorporating Lee’s features for providing information responsive to the (anomalous) transaction and analyzing image data and determining a condition related thereto, as claimed, would serve Adato’s motivation to collect/analyze retail data to detect and respond to non-compliance issues (Adato at paragraphs 766-767 and 773-774: e.g., correlate the non-compliant aspects with sales information to determine a potential impact on sales of one or more particular non-compliance aspects); and further obvious because 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.
As per claim 2, Adato further discloses,
wherein the point of sales data is generated at an automated or self-checkout system operated by a customer ([0147, 0151, 0234, 0232, 0237, 0390]).
As per claim 3, Adato further discloses,
wherein the point of sales data is generated at a point of sale terminal ([0034, 0035]).
As per claim 4, Adato further discloses,
wherein the point of sales data comprises at least one of a price, quantity, or similar objective measures of products purchased by a customer ([0127]).
As per claim 5, Adato further discloses, however, Adato does not explicitly disclose,
wherein the at least one anomalous transaction comprises a differing from expectations of a purchased product in respect to one or more of brand, periodicity, or amount of product being purchased.
Lee teaches (Fig. 2, item 32, [0170, 0197])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Adato with Lee because the references are directed to automated features for using image-based technology to improve retail operations, which is applicant’s field of endeavor of automated image analysis in retail stores, and because modifying Adato analysis of image and anomalous transaction data by incorporating Lee’s features for providing information responsive to the (anomalous) transaction and analyzing image data and determining a condition related thereto, as claimed, would serve Adato’s motivation to collect/analyze retail data to detect and respond to non-compliance issues (Adato at paragraphs 766-767 and 773-774: e.g., correlate the non-compliant aspects with sales information to determine a potential impact on sales of one or more particular non-compliance aspects); and further obvious because 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.
As per claim 6, Adato further discloses,
wherein the at least one anomalous transaction is identified based on analysis of information relating to at least one of historic shopping activities of a customer or demographic information associated with the customer ([0376, 0715, 0739]).
As per claim 7, Adato further discloses,
wherein the at least one anomalous transaction is identified based on one or more factors relating to the historical shopping activities of a customer involved in the transaction or demographic information relating to the customer ([0376, 0715]).
As per claim 8, Adato further discloses, wherein the at least one anomalous transaction comprises a detection of a customer purchasing a first product type rather than a second product type, wherein the first product type and the second product type are included in a common product category ([0485, 0718, 0720, 0725]).
As per claim 9, Adato further discloses,
wherein a first promotion may apply to the first product type and a second promotion may apply to the second product type, wherein the first promotion differs from the second promotion in at least one aspect ([0273, 0450-454, 0782, 0789]).
As per claim 10, Adato further discloses,
wherein the first promotion and the second promotion differ in at least one of price of the promotion, amount offered in each respective promotion, or length of time the promotion is being offered (Fig. 22A, item 2214, 2216).
As per claim 11, Adato further discloses, however, Adato does not explicitly disclose,
wherein the at least one anomalous transaction comprises a selection of a first product type for purchase, wherein the selection of the first product type occurs after an idle period, since a previous selection of the first product type for purchase, of greater than a predetermined threshold.
Lee teaches ([0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include, in the combination of Adato/Lee, Lee’s feature wherein an identified anomalous transaction corresponds to a selection of a first product type for purchase after an idle period since a previous selection of the first product type for purchase of greater than a predetermined threshold, as claimed, in order to use business intelligence related to the timing of customer habitual purchases to target the customer with a promotion, such as upon detecting the customer has delayed in making a routine daily purchase (Lee at paragraph 140); and further obvious because 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.
As per claim 12, Adato further discloses,
wherein the predetermined threshold comprises an expected periodicity based on the historical shopping activity of a customer or the expected duration of use of the first product type ([0175, 0234, 0485]).
As per claim 13, Adato further discloses,
wherein the predetermined threshold is automatically calculated based on historical data or manually assigned to a customer based on information gathered about the customer ([0012, 0761, 0376, 0378, 0744]).
As per claim 14, Adato further discloses, however, Adato does not explicitly disclose,
wherein the at least one anomalous transaction comprises a selection of a first product type for purchase at a rate less frequent than predicted, wherein the predicted rate of purchase is calculated automatically by the system or is determined and entered manually.
Lee teaches ([0141, For example, if a member customer normally orders coffee in the morning, but did not order this time (read on “less frequent than predicted”), and there is a plentiful supply of coffee at the site, 0141, For example, the system may decide to provide a free drink (even though there is no expectation of oversupply in kitchen) because the system evaluates that the customer is about to defect/switch based on expected churn probability (obtained by data from similar demographics (in terms of demographics as well as food demographics) of customers who are no longer visiting the store]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include, in the combination of Adato/Lee, Lee’s feature wherein an anomalous includes a selection of a first product type for purchase at a rate less frequent than predicted, as claimed, in order to use information learned about a customer to identify an opportunity to target the customer to promote a sale that may not otherwise occur for a regularly purchased item, such as upon detecting the customer has chosen not to purchase an item but may be persuaded to purchase the item, e.g., coffee, if given a discount (Lee at paragraph 140); and further obvious because 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.
As per claim 15, Adato further discloses,
wherein the prediction is based on historical shopping activity or another metric that qualitatively or quantitatively determines a customer's rate or purchase periodicity ([0232, 0471, 0485, 0496]).
As per claim 16, Adato further discloses, further comprising,
after identifying the at least one anomalous transaction, determining at least one of possible locations in the retail store of the product to be analyzed, the image capturing devices that may be able to provide image data regarding the product of the anomalous transaction, or the amount of image data required to assess the cause of an anomalous transaction (Fig. 7B, item 726, 728, Fig. 26, item 2605, 2613, [0011, 0494, 0526, 0663, 0737]).
As per claim 17, Adato further discloses,
wherein the image data includes representations of products of both a first product type and a second product type (Fig. 7B, item 726, 728, Fig. 31, item 3122, [0011, 0485, 0718, 0720, 0725, 0737])
As per claim 18, Adato further discloses,
wherein the image data comprises a still image or video of representations of the first product type and the second product type (Abstract, 0485, 0718, 0720, 0725)), wherein the image data is analyzed to determine the amount of products available in either or both of the first product type and second product type or the presence or lack thereof for one or both product types (Fig. 48A, [0037, 0153, 0166, 0737]).
The prior art made of record and relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Trivelpiece et al. (US 2019/0080277): discloses features for comparing content of images captured to POS transaction data to detect anomalous activity, such as possible theft, item misplacement, etc. (See, e.g., paragraph 45).
Guess et al. (US 2020/0210652): discloses features for detecting anomalies based on point-of-sale data and captured images (See, e.g., claim 15).
Cattone (US 2016/0189114),
Cattone (US 2016/0189440),
Lehman (US 2019/0370877),
Fonte et al. (US 2015/0055085),
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN M LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am--5pm. Fax is 571-270-6489.
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, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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.
/SUN M LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685