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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 remain pending and stand rejected.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues that the claims are no longer “directed to” an abstract idea based on IoT enabled monitoring of a user’s in-store movement and interactions and time-constraint inference that “gates when and how the overlay navigates the user to a substitute” (p. 9). The Examiner disagrees and notes that a majority of the claim actually sets forth or describes the abstract procedure, rather than how a technical solution is achieved through the AR device and/or IoT device(s). As written, the claims describe a solution to an problem arising specifically in the realm of commerce – namely, how to resolve potential lost sales. While offering substitute items based on inferred reasons and timing arguably solves this problem to some extent, this is not tantamount to solving a technical problem (i.e., improving the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field).
As written, the amended additional elements remain recited only at a high-level of generality. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. While the claimed invention may manifest improvements to the abstract commercial process, the improvement do not reside in the underlying technology. Instead, the generic computing components are merely used as a tool to perform an abstract idea (or, represent mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware). A claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.
Additionally, while Applicant alleges that the amended claims “tie the alleged abstract idea to specific hardware, specific data flows, and specific AR rendering behaviors” the claims do not offer such specificity. In fact, the claims provide no restriction as to how these operations are achieved such that one of ordinary skill would determine that they set forth “specific hardware, specific data flows, and specific AR rendering behaviors”.
Additionally, a review of the specification reveals the use of generic AR and IoT devices (e.g., 0035, 0048) in support of the abstract idea. The specification does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that the invention achieves an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
The Examiner maintains that the claims do not add meaningful limitations that go beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, or beyond the mere use of the computer as a tool to achieve the claimed invention. Furthermore, the Examiner asserts that the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”.
For at least these reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained below over the amended claims.
II. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the accompanying amendment. This is discussed in further detail below under the heading Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art.
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 (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20 under Step One, claims 1-7 are directed to a method (process), claims 8-14 a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media (manufacture), and claims 15-20 a system (machine). Notably, the specification (e.g., 0016) discloses that “a computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media.”. The BRI of the claimed CRSM is thereby limited to only non-transitory types of storage media.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Regarding claims 1-20 under Step 2A and Step 2B, claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 8 as representative, claim 8 recites a program product for resolving a potential loss of sale, including:
monitoring activity comprising a location of the user in the physical store and an interaction of the user with at least one item in the store;
determining, based on the monitored activity, a potential lost sale and an item associated with the potential lost sale;
retrieving, in response to determining the potential lost sale, information associated with the user comprising shopping preferences and potential time constraints;
predicting, based on the retrieved information, a reason for the potential lost sale of the item and a time constraint associated with the potential lost sale;
selecting one or more substitute items for the item based, at least in part, on the reason for the potential lost sale of the item; and
in response to determining, based on data received, that the user is in the physical store at a time meeting the time constraint, presenting, to the user, directional guidance to a location of one of the one or more substitute items within the physical store.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions and/or fundamental economic principals or practices (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because they set forth or describe resolving a potential loss of sale. This represents the performance of marketing and/or sales activities or behaviors. This also describes concepts relating to the economy and commerce that represent fundamental economic practices. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 8 recites an abstract idea because claim 8 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 8 does recite additional elements, including a server communicatively coupled to devices comprising an augmented-reality (AR) device worn by a user and at least one Internet-of-Things (IoT)-enabled sensor device in a physical store, the computer-implemented method comprising:
monitoring by the AR device and at least one of the IoT-enabled sensor devices,
receiving data from at least one of the devices,
and presenting directional guidance via the AR device.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 8 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Moreover, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 8 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate 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). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 8, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 8 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 8 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 9-14, dependent claims 9-14 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 8. As such, claims 9-14 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 9-14 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 9-14 relay upon the additional elements of claim 8 (discussed above). That is, claims 9-14 do not set forth further additional elements and again utilize additional elements that are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 9-14 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 9-14 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 1-7 (method) and claims 15-20 (system), claims 1-7 and claims 15-20 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 8-14 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Notably, claims 1-7 recite a “computer implemented” method sans any further additional elements. In the other hand, claims 15-20 set forth a system comprised of similar storage media and program instructions, while also adding one or more processing. At least similar analysis of these elements as discussed above with respect to claims 8-14 is applied herein. As such, claims 1-7 and claims 15-20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are rejected on other grounds. Though rejected on other grounds, the following is a statement of the reasons the claims are allowable over the prior art:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention. The allowable features are as follows:
in response to determining, based on data received from at least one of the devices, that the user is in the physical store at a time meeting the time constraint, presenting, to the user via the AR device, directional guidance to a location of one of the one or more substitute items within the physical store.
As understood from above, the amended claims now require responsively presenting directional guidance through an AR device under the specific condition of the user being located in the physical store at a time meeting the time constraint.
As discussed in the previous action, Schiano teaches various aspects of the claimed invention, including determining potential lost sales and presenting substitute items. Schiano, however, failed to teach determining a reason for the potential lost sale of the item, though Schiano does utilize differences in characteristics (e.g., different price, higher margin, higher stock count) to determine substitutes. Paollela was utilized to teach the express determination of a reasons for lost sales.
In addition to the emphasized feature above, the claims now also require an augmented-reality (AR) device worn by a user and at least one Internet-of-Things (IoT)-enabled sensor device in a physical store, and monitoring, via the AR device and at least one of the IoT-enabled sensor devices, activity comprising a location of the user in the physical store and an interaction of the user with at least one item in the store. Neither Schiano nor Paollela, however, teach or render obvious such features.
More importantly, neither Schiano nor Paollela teach or render obvious the emphasized feature above, notably with respect to responsively presenting directional guidance through an AR device under the specific condition of the user being located in the physical store at a time meeting the time constraint.
Nakamoto was previously cited as teaching determination of a time constraint, and though Nakamoto uses the time constraint in relation to substitute items the reference does not teach a determination that a user is within a physical store at a time meeting the time constraint, or otherwise facilitate presenting directional guidance through an AR device based on such a determination.
In view of the above, the Examiner now holds that the combination of monitoring via AR and IoT devices, express determination of a reason for lost sale, prediction of a time constraint associated with the lost sale such that the method culminates with in response to determining, based on data received from at least one of the devices, that the user is in the physical store at a time meeting the time constraint, presenting, to the user via the AR device, directional guidance to a location of one of the one or more substitute items within the physical store is not rendered obvious by the prior art. Accordingly, the Examiner emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PTO form 892 discusses methods for analyzing customer behavior in relation to cart abandonment and identifying key inhibitors in the purchasing process (see: abstract)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619