DETAILED ACTION
The following is a non-final office action upon examination of application number 17/587017.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 11, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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.
(Step 1) Claims 1-10 are directed to a system comprising at least one processor; thus the system comprises a device or set of devices, and therefore, is directed to a machine which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 11-18 are directed to a method; thus these claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is a manufacture, and this a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A) The claims recite an abstract idea instructing how to assign retail locations to item categories, which is described by claim limitations reciting:
obtain layout data for a retail location;
generate a graph data representation of the layout data including a set of nodes representative of fixtures in the layout data and a set of edges representative of connections between the fixtures;
execute at least one model to apply at least one constraint criterion to the graph data representation and, in response, generate a plurality of placement options for each of a plurality of categories;
discard, responsive to the applying, placement options that violate at least one of a plurality of different constraints thereby reducing a search space for subsequent optimization;
receive in real time a first user input … and in response to the first user input, adaptively weight at least one objective function that characterizes an objective criterion associated with category assignment;
for each of the plurality of categories, iteratively input the weighted at least one objective function and a corresponding one of the plurality of placement options … and, for each iteration, generate a score characterizing a minimization of the at least one objective function;
determine, for each of the plurality of categories, a subset of the plurality of placement options based on the corresponding scores;
receive in real time … a second user input characterizing feedback data identifying an assignment for at least one of the plurality of categories, the second user input provided by the user ...;
execute the at least one model to apply the at least one constraint criterion to the feedback data and, in response, adjust the subset of the plurality of placement options for the at least one of the plurality of categories, the adjusted subset of the plurality of placement options comprising the assignment;
… for multiple iterations,… minimize the weighted at least one objective function comprising a plurality of weighted expressions, and in each successive iteration selectively add one or more strong connectivity constraints based on an assignment for a prior iteration to improve connectivity and re-compute a corresponding score, and select a final solution based on a best score across the iterations;
input the adjusted subset of the plurality of placement options … and adjust the corresponding score characterizing the minimization of the at least one objective function;
generate assignment data assigning each of the plurality of categories to one of the corresponding subset of the plurality of placement options based on the corresponding scores; and
store the assignment data in a data repository, wherein the assignment data are accessible to a plurality of authorized users … to arrange a layout of the retail location.
The identified recited limitations in the claims describing assigning retail locations to item categories (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices and marketing activities, or alternatively, the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas since claims describe mathematical relationships/formulas in the form of objective functions with weights. Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 recite limitations that further describe/narrow the abstract idea (i.e., assigning retail locations to item categories); therefore, these claims are also found to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements such as the processor; non-transitory memory storing instructions; and remote computer device in claim 1; the remote computer device in claim 11; the non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause a device to perform operations and remote computer device in claim 19, do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea since these elements are only broadly applied to the abstract ideas at a high level of generality; thus, none of recited hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, in this case, implementation via a computer/processor.
Additional elements such as receive in real time a first user input over a network, the first user input provided by a user through a user interface displayed on a remote computer device…; receive in real time and over the network, a … second user input provided by the user through the user interface displayed on the remote computer device; and …data are accessible to a plurality of authorized users using a plurality of remote devices over the network… do not yield an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they yield improvements to a technical field or technology; further, these additional elements only add insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering/transmission). Additional elements related to input the weighted at least one objective function … to a solver configured to execute on binary decision variables; execute, for multiple iterations, the solver to minimize… and input the adjusted subset … to the executed solver do not yield an improvement to the computer or technology; these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the hardware additional element amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see Spec. [0022]). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additional elements such as receive in real time a first user input over a network, the first user input provided by a user through a user interface displayed on a remote computer device…; receive in real time and over the network, a … second user input provided by the user through the user interface displayed on the remote computer device; and …data are accessible to a plurality of authorized users using a plurality of remote devices over the network… do not yield an improvement and only add insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering/transmission). With respect to data gathering/transmission limitations, the courts have recognized the use of computers to receive and transmit data as a well-understood, routine, and conventional, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Additional elements related to input the weighted at least one objective function … to a solver configured to execute on binary decision variables; execute, for multiple iterations, the solver to minimize and input the adjusted subset … to the executed solver do not yield an improvement to the computer or technology and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains that limitations describing assigning retail locations to item categories (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices and marketing activities, or alternatively, the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas since claims describe mathematical relationships/formulas in the form of objective functions with weights. Limitations related to minimizing weights over multiple iterations further describe/narrow the abstract idea and do not make it any less abstract. The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula such as the Arrhenius equation). See, e.g., Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80, 86-87, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971 (claims directed to "narrow laws that may have limited applications" held ineligible); Flook, 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197 (claims that did not "wholly preempt the mathematical formula" held ineligible).
Additionally, 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. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Additional elements related to input the weighted at least one objective function … to a solver configured to execute on binary decision variables; execute, for multiple iterations, the solver to minimize… and input the adjusted subset … to the executed solver do not yield an improvement to the computer or technology; these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Limitations related to constraints and optimization using an objective function are abstract limitations that further narrow/describe assigning retail locations to item categories.
In McRO, the Federal Circuit held claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1103. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Id. The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. 837 F.3d at 1314, 120 USPQ2d at 1102. The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. In contrast to the claims in McRO, the present claims do not provide an improvement to the computer or technology. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. The specific limitations in the present claims related to constraints and optimization of an objective function are abstract in nature and at best improve a business process but do not improve the computers or technology.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Additional elements related to input the weighted at least one objective function … to a solver configured to execute on binary decision variables; execute, for multiple iterations, the solver to minimize and input the adjusted subset … to the executed solver do not yield an improvement to the computer or technology and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. The present claims do not improve computers; instead, the claims are directed towards automating a process to assign locations within retail space (Spec [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625