DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments filed 7/9/2026. Claims 21-41 are currently pending. The earliest effective filing date of the present application is 10/17/2018. Examiner notes the current application is a continuation of 17/284,808; 18/534,644; and 19/190,672.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 21-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 41are processes (methods), and claims 21-40 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 21 (similarly claims 33 and 41) recites the following bolded abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
21. A system for remotely verifying accuracy of weight-based shopping transactions from a plurality of differing stores, the system comprising:
at least one server remote from the differing stores and being configured to communicate with the plurality of differing stores; and
at least one processor configured to:
maintain on the at least one server a data structure containing an index of available products sold at each of the differing stores and a stored weight associated with each of the available products;
receive from the plurality of differing stores via a plurality of communication channels, identities of selected products in a plurality of physical shopping baskets of each of a plurality of shoppers in the plurality of differing stores;
access the data structure to retrieve the stored weights associated with the selected products;
for each of the plurality of physical shopping baskets, use the stored weights from the data structure to calculate an expected aggregate weight of the selected products in each of the plurality of shopping baskets;
receive from scales at checkout locations in each of the plurality of differing stores data identifying actual aggregate weights of the selected products in each of the physical shopping baskets of each of the plurality of shoppers in the differing stores;
confirm substantial matches between the actual aggregate weights of the selected products in at least some of the physical shopping baskets and the expected aggregate weights of the selected products in at least some of the physical shopping baskets; and
based on the confirmed substantial matches, transmit to a subset of the plurality of stores associated with the substantial matches indications that weight-based verifications are complete.
Claim 21 (similarly claims 33 and 41) is directed to a series of steps for remotely verifying accuracy of weight-based shopping transactions from a plurality of differing stores, which is a commercial/legal interaction (sales activity) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the servers, processor, memory, processor, computing device, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. The scale is being used for its ordinary capacity i.e., weighing objects. See 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(f). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See e.g., Specification [0041] discussing the multiple types of generic processors that could be used. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the servers, processor, memory, processor, computing device, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. The scale is being used for its ordinary capacity i.e., weighing objects. See 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 21, 33, and 41 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-32, and 34-40 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The dependent claims include additional elements that do not amount to more than merely a generic computer component used in their ordinary capacity such as personal devices. Therefore, 22-32, and 34-40 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reason for allowable subject matter of claims 21-41 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. The nearest prior art, Sawada 2018/0225534 nor Dharssi 2015/0095189 do not teach a system weighting an entire basket to discovery discrepancies, specifically said expected aggregate weight takes into differing stores data. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant' s claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claim is not directed towards an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. MPEP §2106.03 (a)(2)(II) states, “An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094.” Here, Applicant is claiming the guarantee service (weight verification) of a transaction (sales activity).
Applicant argues that Examiner is mischaracterized the additional elements as a whole and the claims are directed towards a practical application. Examiner disagrees. The scale is being used as a sensor for a computer. It is collecting data for the computer system to analyze and then output the results. In ordered combination as the previous rejection indicated the scale is no more than a component of a generic computer. Examiner notes that the scale was not identified as extra-solution activity, but as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (emphasis added)” The server is also operating in its “ordinary capacity.” Applicant has not improved or caused the server to perform anything beyond what a generic server could perform.
Applicant argues the claims are significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues a Berkheimer analysis was required. It was not. No additional elements were identified as extra-solution activity. The scale is being used as a sensor for a computer. It is collecting data for the computer system to analyze and then output the results. In ordered combination as the previous rejection indicated the scale is no more than a component of a generic computer.
Examiner maintains position.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at (571)270-3324. 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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov
