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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 filed November April 14, 2025 are pending and are hereby examined.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-5 are directed to a system, all of which are statutory. Claims 1-5 are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea of using pattern data to identify a type of a product.
The independent claim 1 recites the following limitations which fall under a mental process or certain method of organizing human activity:
… provided along a placement surface of a shelf provided so as to allow a plurality of the products to be placed thereon;
… configured to identify types of the products and the number of each of the types of the products by comparing an output of the sensor to the pattern data,
… located so as to face the products with the placement surface interposed between the planar optical sensor and the products,
… has a resolution capable of identifying a shape of one surface, which faces the placement surface, of each of the products placed on the placement surface, and characters, identifiers, and patterns marked on the one surface, and
the pattern data comprises information indicating the shape of the one surface, and the characters, the identifiers, and the patterns marked on the one surface.
7. According to the MPEP, a mental process can be a concept performed in the human mind. Certain methods of organizing human activity can be fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships/interactions between people. Clearly, using pattern data to identify a type of product falls under a mental process or certain method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process or certain method of organizing human activity, then it falls within the “Mental Process” or “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
8. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites using pattern data to identify a type of product with generally recited computer elements such as a detection device, sensor, information processor, and planar optical sensor, which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for using pattern data to identify a type of product. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Mental Process grouping or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
9. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a detection device, sensor, information processor, and planar optical sensor to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
abstract idea of automating and analyzing customer reviews, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
10. Regarding dependent claim 2, although the claim recites a generally recited light guide plate, sensor, and planar optical sensor, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of using pattern data to identify a product, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
11. Regarding dependent claim 3, although the claim recites a generally recited detection device, sensor, information processor, and imager, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of using pattern data to identify a product, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claim 4, although the claim recites a generally recited detection device, information processor, sensor, and weight sensor, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of using pattern data to identify a product, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
13. Regarding dependent claim 5, although the claim recites a generally recited server and terminal device, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of using pattern data to identify a product, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
14. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Examiner Notes
15. Claims 1-5 are novel and unobvious over the prior art, however, there remains a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The Examiner suggests incorporating the elements of claim 5 (dependent on 3), 4, and 2 together into claim 1. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, are suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
16. After further search and consideration, the most pertinent U.S. prior art was found to be Kudo et al (US 2019/0384961), Trakhimovich et al (US 2024/0257049), and Schwarz et al (US 2024/0225306). Kudo et al (US 2019/0384961) is directed to an object collation device. Trakhimovich et al (US 2024/0257049) is directed to employing load cells in shelving arrangements. Schwarz et al (US 2024/0225306) is directed to placing object with a sensor for detecting inventory. Frattasi et al (Mobile Positioning and Tracking: From Conventional to Cooperative Techniques, NPL) was found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art, and is directed to mobile positioning and tracking.
17. However, both the most pertinent U.S. prior art and NPL fail to disclose all of the limitations particularly:
the planar optical sensor has a resolution capable of identifying a shape of one surface, which faces the placement surface, of each of the products placed on the placement surface, and characters, identifiers, and patterns marked on the one surface;
the pattern data comprises information indicating the shape of the one surface, and the characters, the identifiers, and the patterns marked on the one surface.
18. No prior art cited here or in any previous Office Action neither fully anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter present in the independent claims, either alone or in combination. The limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed in the application, are novel and unobvious.
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Frattasi et al (Mobile Positioning and Tracking: From Conventional to Cooperative Techniques, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
