DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to a Request for Continued Examination dated January 27, 2026. Claims 1 and 14 are amended. Claims 20-21 are canceled. Claims 1-19 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Arguments
101 Analysis
In line with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," which explains how we must analyze patent-eligibility questions under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 ("Revised Guidance"), the first step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2A) consists of two prongs. In Prong One, we must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Section III.A. I.). If it does not, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
An abstract idea must fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance or be a "tentative abstract idea, "with the latter situation predicted to be rare. Id. at 51-52 (Section I, enumerating three groupings of abstract ideas), 54 (Section III.A. I., describing Step 2A Prong One), 56-57 (Section III.D., explaining the identification of claims directed to a tentative abstract idea).
If a claim does recite a judicial exception, the next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
If a claim recites a judicial exception but fails to integrate it into a practical application, we move to the second step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2B). to evaluate the additional limitations of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept. Id. at 56 (Section III.B.). In particular, we look to whether the claim:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional 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.
An abstract idea deemed to be novel is no less abstract (see Flook- new mathematical formula was an abstract idea).
In accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve consistency and predictability, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(b) 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)1 – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019 / p.52.
The invention recites:
Independent Claim 1, which is illustrative of the independent claim 14 recite:
1. An abnormal shopping behavior detection method for an intelligent shopping cart, comprising:
scanning, by a code scanner, barcodes on commodities to obtain code scanning data of the commodities during a shopping behavior of user;
collecting by a visual camera, video-frame data of a basket area of the intelligent shopping card during the shopping behavior of the user;
acquiring by a processor, the code scanning data of the commodities and the video-frame image data of the basket area
segmenting by a processor, the commodities in an image of each frame in the video-frame image data of the basket area, to obtain image data of each target commodity in the basket area in the image of each frame;
tracking by a processor, a trajectory of each target commodity according to the image data of each target
commodity in the basket area among images of a plurality of frames, to obtain trajectory tracking
data of each target commodity;
determining by a processor, a motion direction and a motion distance of the tracked trajectory of each target commodity according to the trajectory tracking data of each target commodity;
determining by a processor, an indicative state of whether each target commodity is put in or taken out of the shopping cart, according to the motion direction and the motion distance of the tracked trajectory of each target commodity and a preset commodity motion distance threshold; and
detecting by a processor, an abnormal shopping behavior of the user, according to the code scanning data, the trajectory tracking data of each target commodity in the basket area, and the indicative state of whether each target commodity is put in or taken out of the shopping cart, and generating, by the processor, relevant prompt information according to the abnormal shopping behavior of the user to prompt there being a potential abnormal shopping behavior;
wherein the generating, by the processor, relevant prompt information according to the abnormal shopping behaviour of the user to prompt there being a potential abnormal shopping behavior comprises;
generating by the processor, relevant prompt information according to the abnormal shopping behavior of the user; and
displaying, by and interaction device, the relevant prompt information to prompt the user to correct the abnormal shopping behavior.
Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention (as recited in claims 1-19) is directed towards a certain method of organizing human activity that is the abstract idea of 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.
This entails customer profiling based on their shopping activities (App. Spec. paras. 0004-0006, see also Abstract), wherein the customer’s actions are evaluated based on pre-defined rules to detect any out of pattern or anomalies.
2A – Two
The next step is to determine if the claims recite additional, elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea is the electronic or and computer implementation of the steps which are described at a high level of generality (code scanner, processor – see App. Spec. paras. 0016-0018, 0025-0027; Fig. 5; see also App. specification, paras. 0056-0057, Figs. 3-4) where each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
Absent is any support in the specification that the claims as recited require specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components. These components as described without more or any evidence does not provide support for those steps to amount to an improvement.
Unlike DDR where the improvement was to a computer centric problem, a specific improvement to the way computers operate as a result of their interactions with the internet, in this case of using pattern recognition to detect anomalies in shopping behavior of the user, absent is any support for a similar improvement. The “processor” is merely being used as tool to perform the abstract idea and absent is any technological improvement besides the abstract idea.
Although the amended claims recite
… generating, by the processor, relevant prompt information according to the abnormal shopping behavior of the user to prompt there being a potential abnormal shopping behavior;
wherein the generating, by the processor, relevant prompt information according to the abnormal shopping behaviour of the user to prompt there being a potential abnormal shopping behavior comprises;
generating by the processor, relevant prompt information according to the abnormal shopping behavior of the user; and
displaying, by and interaction device, the relevant prompt information to prompt the user to correct the abnormal shopping behavior.
The claims as recited seem to suggest producing data and displaying it by automating the process of detecting anomalies in shopping behavior based on predefined criteria. Absent is evidence of executing these steps beyond a general-purpose computer or an invention that reflects an improved interface. (cf. with Trading Technology where the display was found to be a graphical user interface that required a specific, structured GUI paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the GUI’s structure that is addressed to and resolves a specific identified problem). Absent is any support for any improvements to the process of customer behaviors evaluated against predetermined patterns.
2B - The next step is whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Using a computer for data gathering, generation, analysis and evaluating conditions for determining anomalies, albeit in the shopping context is one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are generic computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms 'processing,' 'receiving, ' and 'storing,
PNG
media_image1.png
7
35
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
7
6
media_image2.png
Greyscale
those functions can be achieved by any general-purpose computer without special programming").
Each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Considered as ordered combination, the computer components of the claims as recited add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately (generic computer components - (see App. specification, paras. 0017-0019; 0025-0027’ Figs. 4-5). The purported inventive concept resides in the order or sequence of the types of data collected and used in determining anomalies in shopping patterns and not in how the processing technologically achieves those results.
The dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19, for example claims 2-5 provide additional descriptions of the different data points from the shopping activities for determining anomalies based on predefined rules of the claimed invention in a manner that merely refines and further limits the abstract ideas of independent claims 1 and 14 do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of the independent claims.
None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the dependent claims is patent-ineligible. Therefore, claims 1-19 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Independent claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 including claims 2-13 and 15-19 which fall with claims 1 and 14.
Therefore, claims 1-19 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim recites abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Independent Claim 1, which is illustrative of the independent claim 14 recite:
1. An abnormal shopping behavior detection method for an intelligent shopping cart, comprising:
scanning, by a code scanner, barcodes on commodities to obtain code scanning data of the commodities during a shopping behavior of user;
collecting by a visual camera, video-frame data of a basket area of the intelligent shopping card during the shopping behavior of the user;
acquiring by a processor, the code scanning data of the commodities and the video-frame image data of the basket area
segmenting by a processor, the commodities in an image of each frame in the video-frame image data of the basket area, to obtain image data of each target commodity in the basket area in the image of each frame;
tracking by a processor, a trajectory of each target commodity according to the image data of each target
commodity in the basket area among images of a plurality of frames, to obtain trajectory tracking
data of each target commodity;
determining by a processor, a motion direction and a motion distance of the tracked trajectory of each target commodity according to the trajectory tracking data of each target commodity;
determining by a processor, an indicative state of whether each target commodity is put in or taken out of the shopping cart, according to the motion direction and the motion distance of the tracked trajectory of each target commodity and a preset commodity motion distance threshold; and
detecting by a processor, an abnormal shopping behavior of the user, according to the code scanning data, the trajectory tracking data of each target commodity in the basket area, and the indicative state of whether each target commodity is put in or taken out of the shopping cart, and generating, by the processor, relevant prompt information according to the abnormal shopping behavior of the user to prompt there being a potential abnormal shopping behavior;
wherein the generating, by the processor, relevant prompt information according to the abnormal shopping behaviour of the user to prompt there being a potential abnormal shopping behavior comprises;
generating by the processor, relevant prompt information according to the abnormal shopping behavior of the user; and
displaying, by and interaction device, the relevant prompt information to prompt the user to correct the abnormal shopping behavior.
Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention (as recited in claims 1-19) is directed towards a certain method of organizing human activity that is the abstract idea of 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. The invention involves a determination made in response to the shopping activities of a user.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components (e.g., processor - see App. specification, paras. 0056-0058; Figs. 4-5). This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components (e.g., scanner) for transmitting or and receiving data.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Although the claims recite
generating, by the processor, relevant prompt information according to the abnormal shopping behavior of the user to prompt there being a potential abnormal shopping behavior;
wherein the generating, by the processor, relevant prompt information according to the abnormal shopping behaviour of the user to prompt there being a potential abnormal shopping behavior comprises;
generating by the processor, relevant prompt information according to the abnormal shopping behavior of the user; and
displaying, by and interaction device, the relevant prompt information to prompt the user to correct the abnormal shopping behavior.
according to the abnormal shopping behavior of the user to prompt there being a potential abnormal shopping behavior.
It suggests collection and transmittal of data that results in an output, however, the claim does 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 (which include- e.g., computing device) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Further, the dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 for example, recite additional descriptive details about the criteria or rules applied to the making the assessment. For example, claims 2-5 describe the collection device and data received included in the assessment, however the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite generic computer components (e.g., general-purpose computer) to evaluate the submitted data based on predefined conditions.
The dependent claims provide additional descriptions of the components of the claimed invention in a manner that merely refines and further limits the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 14 do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of the independent claims.
None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the dependent claims are patent-ineligible.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1-19 and 21 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stawar, USP Pub. No. 20080237339, Integration of Customer-Stored Information with Media Enabled Shopping Systems.
Letierce, USP Pub. No. 20230005348, Fraud Detection System and Method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 571 272-3955. 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.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344–45 (concluding that ‘‘[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,’’ observing that the district court ‘‘pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.’’); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of ‘‘voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,’’ a ‘‘fundamental activity’’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea);
In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’’ are abstract).
14 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir . 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S.at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 - – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019
Prosecution Insights