DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on June 25, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-15 have been amended. Claim 3 has been canceled and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-2, and 4-15 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2 and 4-15 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.
In sum, claims 1-2, and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process, (claims 12-13), a machine (claims 1-2 and 4-11), and a manufacture (claims 14-15), where the machine and manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of carrying out a transaction fraudulent analysis by:
acquiring an image, captured by a,…, disposed to capture a checkout state at the self-checkout,…, in which the customer is registering a commodity to be purchased;
extracting a commodity image from the image acquired in the acquiring;
specifying commodity information registered in the self-checkout,…;
inputting the commodity image and the commodity information into a learned multimodal foundation model that has been trained to comprehend image-text pairs, and judging matching between the commodity image and the commodity information, based on a result outputted from the learned multimodal foundation model, the result indicating a similarity, calculated by the learned multimodal foundation model, between the commodity image and a text that is the commodity information; and
notifying, when the matching judgement step has judged that a degree of matching is low a clerk,…, of an erroneous operation warning indicating, that the degree of matching is low,
wherein the commodity information is acquired from the self-checkout,…, via an,....
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., carrying out a transaction fraudulent analysis).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “system,” “camera,” “interface,” and “terminal” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0002] of the specification). Claims 1, 8, 13, 14, and 15 are nearly identical to claim 12 so the same analysis applies to these claims as well. Claims 8, 13, and 15 contain a different term (“fusion model”) instead of a “large language model” that is contained in the other claims. This is a slightly different model but it is a generic machine learning model nonetheless.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7 and 9-11 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claim 2 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 12 in that it describes that the matching judgement unit calculates a similarity between the commodity image and text. Dependent claim 4 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 12 in that it describes that the registered commodity specification unit acquires the commodity information from the checkout screen interface. Dependent claim 5 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 12 in that it describes that when the commodity image has not been registered as the commodity information, there is a mismatch. Dependent claim 6 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 12 in that it describes a mismatch being found when the number of commodities is less than the number of commodities registered. Dependent claim 7 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 12 in that it describes a mismatch being found when the commodity recognized in the commodity image is different than the commodity whose name is in the information. Dependent claim 9 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 12 in that it describes matching the result outputted from the model and the commodity information. Dependent claim 10 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 12 in that it describes matching the result outputted from the model and the commodity information. Dependent claim 11 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 12 in that it describes matching the result outputted from the model and the commodity information.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments filed on June 25, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the pending rejection of claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2), as a result of the amendments to the claim and Applicant’s arguments which have been found to be persuasive, the pending rejection is now moot and, hereby, withdrawn. Scott fails to disclose a “cross-modal model” that requires inputting both the commodity image and the commodity information into a single learned multimodal foundation model that has been trained to comprehend image-text pairs, and judging matching based on a similarity, calculated by that model, between the commodity image and a text that is the commodity information.
In addition, as a result of Applicant’s amendments, the pending interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) relating to claims 1 and 8 is also moot, and, hereby, withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that “the claims as amended integrate any such idea into a practical application and are therefore patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two. The independent claims, as amended, recite a specific technological improvement to self-checkout loss-prevention technology: acquiring an image, captured by a camera disposed to capture a checkout state at the self-checkout system; extracting a commodity image from that image; inputting both the commodity image and the commodity information into a learned multimodal foundation model that has been trained to comprehend image-text pairs; and judging matching based on a similarity, calculated by that model, between the commodity image and a text that is the commodity information.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 11). However, the amended claim limitations are not indicative of an integration into a practical application as improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field is not evidenced. Merely using a machine learning model to judge “matching” of image and text does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These elements are merely generic components that are implementing the abstract idea.
Applicant finally argues that “the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea under Step 2B.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 11). However, the additional elements, such as: a “system,” “camera,” “interface,” and “terminal” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0002] of the specification). Comparing data (even if in two different forms) to make a determination and sending a generic notification to a user is not a technological improvement.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR §1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Amit Patel whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights