DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 11 February 2026.
Claims 1, 7, 21, 27, and 28 have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 22-23, and 29-30 have been canceled.
Claims 8-20 were previously canceled.
Claim 34 has been added.
Claims 1, 4-7, 21, 24-28, and 31-34 are pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 February 2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
As indicated in previous Office Actions, the independent claims recite allowable subject matter, and the claims would be allowable if the claims were amended or re-written to overcome the 101 rejection that is indicated in the Office Action 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, 4-7, 21, 24-28, and 31-34 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.
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1 and 4-7 are directed to a system, claims 21 and 24-27 are directed to a method, and claims 28 and 31-34 are directed to a product of manufacture (defined as “memory can serve, for example, to non-transitorily store the computer instructions” in paragraph [0035] of the applicant’s specification).
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of displaying products for sale with visual identifiers. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
retrieve product identification data for a product for sale in the retail environment, the product identification data including an identification number and timing information associated with the product;
encode the product identification data into a display content in a format recognizable, wherein the display content is encoded to include a first content field comprising human-readable text and a second field comprising and identifier; and
transmit the display content;
a product display disposed int the retail environment to hold and display products;
a shelf label coupled to a portion of the product display and comprising a substrate and coupled to a portion of the product display, and
receive the display content transmitted and render the display content on the substrate, wherein the display content comprises:
a price for the product as part of the first content field; and
a visual identifier to identify the product for sale in the retail environment as the identifier of the second content field, the visual identifier comprising
a plurality of markers in a linear arrangement and to represent the product identification data, wherein the plurality of markers is configured to be optically readable and includes:
a pair of markers, wherein a first marker of the pair of markers is located on a first side of the plurality of markers and wherein a second marker of the pair of markers is located on a second side of the plurality of markers, wherein the first marker and the second marker indicate boundaries of the visual identifier, and wherein each of the first marker and the second marker differs from other markers of the plurality of markers;
data markers, wherein each of the data markers represents one of two states, wherein the data markers collectively represent the identification number corresponding to the product for sale in the retail environment, and wherein each of the data markers ins one unit in dimension;
timing markers collectively representing the timing information associated with the product, wherein each of the timing markers is one unit in dimension; and
check markers representing a sum of the data markers and the timing markers and used to verify an accuracy of the visual identifier.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of displaying products for sale with visual identifiers, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “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).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claims 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to advertising, or sale activities since the claims are directed to displaying products with visual identifiers which include steps of retrieving product information data for a product for sale in a retail environment, encoding the product identification data into display content that would be able to be recognizable and displayed to include human-readable text, as well as a second identifier, transmitting the display, holding and displaying products for sale in a retail environment, a price sign that is coupled to the display holding the products that further includes a price for the product for sale, receiving the display content to render the display content on the substrate of the price sign, where the display content includes a price for the product, a visual identifier to identify the product for sale comprising a plurality of markers configured to be optically read that include a pair of markers to represent the product identification data, data markers that represent the identification number of the product, timing markers representing a time value associated with the product, and check markers that represent a sum of the data markers and the timing markers and used to verify an accuracy of the visual identifier, thereby making these activities related to advertising, or sales activities or behaviors.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: a control circuit, a database, rendering units, over a network, electronic shelf label (ESL), a unit, an electronic render unit, the control circuit over the network, the computer-readable identifier, encoded by the control circuit, and a device having an optical sensor.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., displaying products with visual identifiers) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of a control circuit, a database, rendering units, over a network, electronic shelf label (ESL), a unit, an electronic render unit, the control circuit over the network, the computer-readable identifier, encoded by the control circuit, and a device having an optical sensor recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claims 21 and 28 are similar in nature to representative claim 1, and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 28 includes the additional elements of a computer-readable memory for displaying prices for products in a retail environment, the computer-readable memory storing instructions. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of additional elements in claim 28, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claim 28 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claim 28 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 28, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claims 21 and 28 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 4-7, 24-27, and 31-34, depending from claims 1, 21, and 28 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 4-7, 24-27, and 31-34 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that amended dependent claims not include additional elements, and therefore there are no additional elements to consider in the eligibility analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B. Thus, since the dependent claims do not recite additional elements, no additional integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 4-7, 24-27, and 31-34 are directed towards an abstract idea.
As such, dependent claims 4-7, 24-27, and 31-34 are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 11 February 2026, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 10 of the remarks stating “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea pursuant to Step 2A Prong 1 analysis,” and “claim 1, as amended does not fall within the methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas and thus is not directed toward an abstract idea,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even when considering the amendments to the claims, the amended limitations are still directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis.
In this case, the claims are directed to an abstract idea of displaying products for sale with visual identifiers. The amended claims include steps for displaying products with visual identifiers comprising the steps of retrieving product information data for a product for sale in a retail environment, encoding the product identification data into display content that would be able to be recognizable and displayed to include human-readable text, as well as a second identifier, transmitting the display, holding and displaying products for sale in a retail environment, a price sign that is coupled to the display holding the products that further includes a price for the product for sale, receiving the display content to render the display content on the substrate of the price sign, where the display content includes a price for the product, a visual identifier to identify the product for sale comprising a plurality of markers configured to be optically read that include a pair of markers to represent the product identification data, data markers that represent the identification number of the product, timing markers representing a time value associated with the product, and check markers that represent a sum of the data markers and the timing markers and used to verify an accuracy of the visual identifier, thereby making these activities related to advertising, or sales activities or behaviors. Therefore even when considering the amendments to the claims, the claims are still directed to the abstract idea, falling into the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, such as sales behaviors or activities, and advertising activities.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 10-12 of the remarks stating that “Applicant respectfully submits that, even if it is still determined that Claim 1 recites an abstract idea in light of the amendments and remarks above (which is disputed herein by the Applicant), the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application,” and “Claim 1 successfully links the claim into the particular technological environment of data encoding product-specific timing data as a computer-readable timing markers for presentation, and thereby optical scan-ability, via an ESL,” and further “Applicant submits that the claimed invention provides improvements in the technical field pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a), which is relevant to step 2A prong 2 analysis,” and “claim 1 recites significant improvements in the technical field of data encoding for electronic display units,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, the claims do not successfully link to the particular technological environment of data encoding and do not use the abstract idea in a meaningful way. Even when considering the amendments to the claims that include an ESL, along with the other claimed additional elements, they are not recited in a manner that would be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed additional elements are still recited at high-level of generality, and recited in a generic manner, using the additional elements to apply the abstract idea with generically recited computing components and processor. The claimed additional elements, considered individually and in combination, are not recited with enough technical detail to demonstrate how the additional elements are functioning within the claims, and therefore are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, the claimed additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not recite an improvement to the technology itself, nor to the technical field. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraph [0015] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention is directed toward addressing problems with visual identifiers in a retail environment. Although the claims include computer technology such as a control circuit, a database, rendering units, over a network, electronic shelf label (ESL), a unit, an electronic render unit, the control circuit over the network, the computer-readable identifier, encoded by the control circuit, and a device having an optical sensor, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of displaying products with visual identifiers. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improvements to the visual identifiers for products, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve visual identifiers for product display e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 12-13 of the remarks stating “Applicant respectfully submits that, even if it is still determined that claim 1 recites an abstract idea in light of the amendments and arguments above (which is disputed herein by the Applicant), the additional elements of claim 1 amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea,” and “Applicant asserts that the WURC analysis is appropriate in this case, as such analysis overlaps with the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration,” and “the claimed invention is not merely WURC, but instead a unique and specific system for encoding and displaying product-specific timing information as a computer-readable code that amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the amended claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As mentioned above, the claimed additional elements, considered as an ordered combination, are recited in a generic manner, and are being used to apply the abstract idea by using generically recited processor and computing components. The Examiner also points out that if it had been concluded under Step 2A, that, e.g., an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion under Step 2B, which includes an evaluation of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05). In this case, the examiner has not concluded that any of the claim limitations represent insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, any considerations under Berkheimer as to what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in this case, are unnecessary. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not eligible under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis because they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and maintains the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688