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 . This Office Action responds to the amendment and argument filed by applicant on April 09, 2026 in response to the Office Action mailed on January 09, 2026.
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 1–8, 10, and 27–42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 1–8 and 27–35 are directed to processes, claims 10 and 36–42 are directed to a machine and manufacture (non-transitory computer-readable medium), respectively. Accordingly, the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
The Claims Recite a Judicial Exception
Independent claims 1, 27, and 36 are representative.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations including:
receiving a request regarding a misplaced retail item; notifying a customer of the request; providing an option to accept the request; receiving acceptance; transmitting acceptance information; directing the customer to retrieve or relocate the item; optionally determining nearby customers based upon shopping lists or proximity; optionally rewarding participation; and reporting completion.
These limitations collectively describe the management of retail inventory correction by coordinating activities between a store and customers, including assigning tasks, obtaining acceptance, directing performance of tasks, and reporting task completion.
Such subject matter constitutes certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions, business relations, and management of interactions between people. The claims effectively outsource inventory correction traditionally performed by employees to customers through coordinated task assignment.
Additionally, the claims recite collecting information regarding misplaced merchandise, evaluating customer location and acceptance, determining whether tasks should be assigned, and communicating results, which constitute mental processes involving observation, evaluation, judgment, and information processing.
Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas within the enumerated groupings identified by the 2024 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The Claims Do Not Integrate the Judicial Exception Into a Practical Application
The additional elements recited in the claims include: an extended reality (XR) device;
one or more processors; one or more memories; servers; cameras; displays; speakers; store mapping information; navigation paths; overlayed audio-visual cues; shopping carts; notifications; incentives; and network communications.
These additional elements merely implement the abstract inventory management concept using generic computing technology.
XR Device
The XR device merely serves as a generic computing platform that receives information, presents notifications, displays navigation information, and communicates with servers.
The claims do not improve XR hardware, rendering engines, headset architecture, or augmented reality processing.
Server
The server merely dispatches requests and receives acknowledgements using conventional client-server communications.
Camera
The camera merely captures images for conventional object detection and localization.
No improvement to image processing, computer vision, or camera operation is recited.
Navigation Path
The navigation path merely provides route guidance from one location to another.
The claims do not improve routing algorithms or localization technologies.
Overlayed Audio-Visual Cues
Presenting arrows, indicators, or spoken directions merely conveys information to users.
Presentation of information does not constitute a technological improvement.
Store Mapping Information
Store maps merely represent location information conventionally used for navigation.
Incentives
Discounts, coupons, store credits, and reward points constitute conventional marketing practices and commercial interactions.
Collectively, these elements merely use generic computer components as tools to implement the underlying abstract business concept.
The claims therefore fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The Claims Do Not Recite Significantly More
The Examiner has evaluated the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination.
Receiving Requests
Receiving requests from a server constitutes routine network communication.
Providing Notifications
Displaying notifications to users represents ordinary graphical user interface functionality.
Receiving Acceptance
Receiving user input through an interface constitutes conventional interaction with computing devices.
Transmitting Acceptance
Sending acknowledgements to servers represents ordinary client-server communication.
In-Store Navigation
Providing navigation assistance through displays or speakers is conventional route guidance technology.
Camera-Based Detection
Using cameras to observe merchandise or shopping carts merely applies generic image capture functionality.
Shopping Lists
Maintaining shopping lists constitutes ordinary retail software functionality.
Incentives
Providing discounts, coupons, reward points, or credits represents conventional promotional activity.
Store Mapping
Using maps for navigation constitutes well-understood computer functionality.
None of these elements individually provides an inventive concept.
Ordered Combination
Viewed as an ordered combination, the claims merely automate the following business workflow:
identify misplaced inventory;
identify a customer;
request customer assistance;
receive customer acceptance;
direct the customer to the misplaced item;
optionally direct relocation of the item;
optionally reward participation; and
report completion.
The sequence merely computerizes and augments an existing retail inventory management practice.
The XR headset replaces conventional verbal instructions or printed directions with electronic overlays but performs only its expected function of presenting information.
Accordingly, the ordered combination amounts to no more than the predictable automation of conventional retail task management using generic computing technology.
Representative Claim Analysis
Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 recites organizing customer participation in resolving misplaced retail inventory by: receiving a misplaced-item request; notifying a customer; obtaining acceptance; transmitting acceptance; and directing retrieval through navigation cues.
These limitations are directed to organizing human activity and information processing.
The additional XR device, server, interface, and audio-visual cues merely implement the abstract concept using generic technology.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2–8
Claims 2–8 merely add: shopping lists; proximity determination; current location determination; relocation destinations; store mapping; shopping cart detection; and incentives.
These limitations merely refine or narrow the abstract business process and likewise fail to provide significantly more.
Claim 10
Claim 10 further adds detection of additional misplaced merchandise using cameras and alerts.
The claim merely applies conventional image capture to identify misplaced products without reciting any particular technological improvement in computer vision or object recognition.
Accordingly, claim 10 likewise remains directed to the abstract inventory management concept.
Independent Claims 27 and 36
Claims 27 and 36 recite substantially the same abstract workflow as claim 1 in method and computer-readable medium form.
The recited XR device, server communications, interface operations, navigation paths, and overlayed audio-visual cues perform only their ordinary expected functions.
Accordingly, these claims likewise fail Step 2A and Step 2B.
Claims 28–35 and 37–42
These dependent claims merely add shopping lists, proximity constraints, current location, destination locations, mapping information, shopping cart detection, incentives, misplaced-item detection, and reporting features.
These limitations merely refine the underlying business process and do not improve computer functionality or another technology.
Claims 1–8, 10, and 27–42 are directed to the abstract idea of coordinating customer-assisted retail inventory correction and related information processing, including assigning tasks, receiving acceptance, guiding users, detecting misplaced items, and reporting completion.
The additional elements—including XR devices, servers, cameras, displays, speakers, mapping information, navigation paths, overlayed audio-visual cues, shopping carts, and incentives—merely invoke generic computer components performing their ordinary functions and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, claims 1–8, 10, and 27–42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
claims 1–8, 10, and 27–42 are allowable over prior arts. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on [DATE] have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, applicant argues that the claims do not recite any of the enumerated abstract idea groupings identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and instead recite a specific technological implementation involving an extended reality (XR) device. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
When considered as a whole under the broadest reasonable interpretation, independent claims 1, 27, and 36 recite a workflow that includes: receiving a request to resolve a misplaced item; notifying a customer of the request; allowing the customer to accept the request; transmitting acceptance of the request; directing the customer to retrieve or relocate the misplaced item; and optionally providing incentives and reporting completion.
These limitations are directed to organizing human activity by assigning and coordinating tasks between a retail establishment and customers for inventory management purposes. In particular, the claims facilitate the delegation of store maintenance responsibilities to shoppers and incentivize participation, which constitutes a commercial interaction and management of relationships or interactions between people.
Furthermore, the claims recite collecting information regarding misplaced merchandise, evaluating whether a customer should be tasked with retrieving the merchandise, determining acceptance of the task, and communicating task status, all of which constitute observation, evaluation, judgment, and information processing that fall within the category of mental processes.
Applicant contends that the Examiner has failed to identify which category of organizing human activity applies. The Examiner clarifies that the claims are directed at least to commercial interactions and business relations involving retail inventory management, which are expressly identified as methods of organizing human activity under the 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The mere inclusion of an XR device, server communications, and audio-visual presentation does not alter the character of the underlying invention, which remains directed to coordinating human participation in correcting misplaced retail inventory.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Regarding characterization of the claims, applicant argues that the claims recite "a technique to enable a server to communicate with a customer via an XR interface" rather than organizing human activity.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed server communications merely facilitate the underlying business objective of requesting that a customer locate and relocate misplaced merchandise. The XR interface simply serves as the presentation mechanism by which the request is communicated and navigation instructions are displayed.
The focus of the claims is not on improving XR technology itself but rather on using conventional XR technology as a tool to accomplish inventory management tasks that otherwise could be performed by store employees or shoppers.
Consequently, the claims remain directed to organizing human activity implemented using generic computer technology.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two that the Claims Do Not Integrate the Judicial Exception Into a Practical Application, applicant argues that the Office failed to consider the claim as a whole and improperly ignored numerous claim limitations.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The rejection considered the claim in its entirety, including the XR device, server communications, interface operations, notifications, acceptance mechanisms, navigation paths, audio commands, visual directional signs, cameras, and mapping information.
Nevertheless, these additional elements merely implement the abstract inventory-assistance workflow using conventional computer components.
For example: the server merely transmits requests and receives acknowledgements;
the XR device merely displays information and receives user input; the interface merely presents notifications and navigation guidance; the audio commands merely provide spoken directions;
the visual overlays merely present directional information; the camera merely captures images;
the mapping information merely represents store layouts; and the navigation path merely guides the user from one location to another.
The claims do not improve: XR rendering technology; augmented reality overlay generation; localization algorithms; simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM); computer vision algorithms; object recognition technology; networking protocols; display hardware; audio processing; or camera functionality.
Rather, the XR device is used in its ordinary capacity to display information and guide a user.
The practical application asserted by Applicant is simply the use of conventional XR hardware to perform the abstract business task of locating misplaced retail inventory.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to applicant's Reliance on Audio-Visual Cues, applicant argues that providing overlayed audio-visual cues imposes a meaningful limitation.
The Examiner is not persuaded.
Displaying navigation guidance using visual overlays and audio instructions merely constitutes presentation of information to a user.
Presentation of information through an XR interface does not improve XR technology itself but merely changes the medium through which directions are conveyed.
Providing arrows, directional indicators, or spoken commands to guide a customer is analogous to presenting instructions on a conventional display and therefore represents insignificant extra-solution activity.
The recited audio-visual cues therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to applicant's argument regarding server communication, applicant further argues that receiving requests from a server and transmitting acceptance distinguishes the claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Client-server communication represents conventional network communication routinely performed by distributed computing systems.
The server merely dispatches work requests and receives acknowledgements.
Such communications neither improve networking technology nor alter the functioning of the XR device.
Accordingly, these limitations merely automate conventional business coordination using generic networking infrastructure.
Step 2B
The Claims Do Not Recite Significantly More
Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea, those elements do not amount to significantly more.
XR Device
The XR device is recited at a high level of generality and performs its ordinary functions of receiving information, displaying information, and communicating with servers.
Server
The server merely sends requests and receives acknowledgements using conventional networking functionality.
Interface:
The interface merely presents notifications and receives user selections.
Navigation Path:
Providing navigation paths constitutes routine route guidance.
Overlayed Audio-Visual Cues:
Displaying arrows or directional indicators and providing spoken commands are conventional methods of presenting navigation information.
Camera:
The camera merely captures images for object detection and localization using known techniques.
Store Mapping Information:
Store maps merely provide positional information and are used conventionally for navigation.
Incentives:
Providing discounts, coupons, reward points, or store credits represents conventional marketing activity and commercial interaction.
Detection of Misplaced Items:
Detecting differences between shelf items and surrounding merchandise merely applies image analysis to inventory management without reciting any particular technological improvement or specialized algorithm.
Ordered Combination: Considered as an ordered combination, the claims merely automate the following workflow:
detect or identify misplaced inventory;
notify a nearby shopper;
request assistance;
receive acceptance;
guide the shopper to retrieve the item;
optionally guide placement of the item;
report completion; and
optionally provide incentives.
This sequence merely computerizes and augments an existing retail maintenance practice using conventional XR hardware, networking, mapping, cameras, and displays.
The ordered combination therefore represents no more than the predictable use of known computer technology to automate a business practice.
Response to Applicant's Assertion that the Claims Improve XR Technology:
Applicant asserts that the claims implement a specific XR technique.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims do not improve the operation of the XR headset itself.
No claim recites:
improved rendering pipelines;
improved depth estimation;
improved simultaneous localization and mapping;
improved tracking algorithms;
improved camera calibration;
improved display architecture;
improved latency reduction;
improved field-of-view processing;
improved sensor fusion; or
improved XR interaction models.
Instead, the XR device merely displays navigation cues while performing its ordinary intended purpose.
The alleged improvement resides in the business workflow rather than in computer technology.
Accordingly, the claims are distinguishable from patent-eligible claims such as those in Enfish, McRO, Core Wireless, and Data Engine Technologies, each of which recited specific improvements to computer functionality or user interface technology.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Examiner maintains that claims 1–8, 10, and 27–42 are directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity through customer-assisted retail inventory management and information processing, including assigning inventory correction tasks, receiving acceptance, guiding customers, and reporting completion.
The additional elements—including the XR device, server, interface, camera, mapping information, navigation path, overlayed audio-visual cues, and incentives—merely invoke generic computing and XR technology to implement the abstract idea and do not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1–8, 10, and 27–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is hereby maintained.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights