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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 10/16/2025.
Claim 1, 16, 21, and 22 are currently amended.
Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/16/2025 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8-9, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 1-20 are directed to a method, claim 21 is directed to a manufacture, and claim 22 is directed to a system. Claims 1, 21, and 22 are parallel in nature, therefore, the analysis will use claim 1 as the representative claim.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. In the instant case, representative claim 1 recites abstract concepts including: determining, ... a physical location … in a store; determining, ... using the physical location ... a … location that corresponds to the physical location, wherein the … location is in a … model that represents a spatial layout of the store; determining ... from the … model, a subset of model data based on the … location, wherein: the model data comprises (i) store location data applicable to the entire store, (ii) shelf data applicable to shelves in the store, and (iii) planogram data applicable to the shelves and products associated with the shelves, and the subset of the model data comprising (iv) the store location data, (v) a subset of the shelf data applicable to at least a shelf within a predefined distance of the physical location of the device, and (vi) a subset of the planogram data applicable to at least the shelf and a product associated with the shelf; generating... a presentation of a scene based on the subset of the model data, the presentation showing a visual representation of the product overlaid on an image of the shelf within the scene.
When considering the subject matter groupings articulated in MPEP 2106.04, the claims recite an abstract idea of “presenting a scene based on store model or layout information”. These concepts are considered to be certain methods of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “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)”. Presenting a scene based on a store layout or planogram, which is used to visualize how products should be arranged/stocked in a store, is a certain method of organizing human activity these are examples of managing personal behavior (i.e. informing a user where a product should be placed). Therefore, claims 1, 21, and 22 recite an abstract idea.
If it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, then in Step 2A, Prong 2 of the SME analysis, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. This is the question of whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.05, the evaluation of Prong Two requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole “integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”
In this instant case, claims 1, 21, and 22 recite the additional elements including: a device; a modeling system; a virtual location; a virtual model that is stored in a database; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions; a processor. The device, model, storage medium, database, and processor are each recited at a high level of generality. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h). The recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. a virtual/computer-implemented environment). Employing generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea, does not provide meaningful limits on the claim. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea of “presenting a scene based on store model or layout information” into a practical application. Claims 1, 21, and 22 are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME 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).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a general computer components. The invention as claimed merely automates “presenting a scene based on store model or layout information” (i.e., the abstract idea) and does not add meaningful limitations to the abstract ideas beyond generally linking the abstract process to implementation via computers/software. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, do not render the claim as being significantly more than the underlying abstract idea, and the claims 1, 21, and 22 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-11 and 18-19 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea without reciting any further additional elements. Thus dependent claims 2-11 and 18-19 are also ineligible.
Dependent claim 12-13 and 20 recites additional elements including: sending a query to a datastore; and receiving the subset of model data from the datastore based on the query; sending, to the datastore, a request to change product data in the subset of the planogram data … wherein the request causes an update to the planogram data. Similar to the additional elements identified above, the datastore, sending of the query/request, and updating are described in ordinary terms and merely used as tools in performance of the abstract idea. These limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, which does not amount to an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, storing/retrieving information in memory has been repeatedly considered a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)II.iv.). Accordingly, claim(s) 12-13 and 20 considered both individually and as a combination, is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim 14-17 recite additional elements including: an AR scene; an augmented reality (AR) device; a set of sensors of the AR device. Similar to the additional elements identified above, AR device and sensors are described in ordinary terms and merely used as tools in performance of the abstract idea. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, neither do they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus claims 14-17 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 11, 12, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stansell et al. (US 2018/0150791 A1).
Claim 1, Stansell discloses a method implemented by a device (¶ [0033] “AR device”), the method comprising:
determining, using the device, a physical location of the device in a store (¶ [0054] “In the case of (2), locating the modular (404) can include the user providing input to AR device 120 in order to request and receive the relevant data. This input can comprise verbal input (e.g., saying a department, zone, aisle or section, or other identifying information)… or geolocation input (e.g., identifying a current location of AR device 120 by geolocation system 310, and identifying the desired modular from possible modulars at that location or by determining a direction of vision of the user of AR device 120)”);
determining, by the device and using a modeling system (¶ [0033] “augmented reality assisted (AR-assisted) product modular arrangement system”, “the AR-assisted system comprises and AR device, such as a headset, glasses, or mobile device, that uses one or more of computer vision ... to guide a use through locating ... a retail display”) and the physical location (¶ [0066] “a geolocation of AR device 120”), a virtual location that corresponds to the physical location, wherein the virtual location is in a virtual model that is stored in a database and represents a spatial layout of the store (¶ [0054] “AR device 120 can visually scan a modular for markers or other identifiers to identify the desired modular.”; ¶ [0066] “AR device 120 can request or system 100/product database 110 can push only data and information, including images, for products in that department (or associated with a particular modular or zone, etc.)” in view of ¶ [0037] discussion of database 110 comprising AR-optimized modular and product data such as “backend planogram data” and ¶ [0039] “Modular location data”; FIG. 2A-2B);
determining, by the device, from the virtual model, a subset of model data based on the virtual location (¶ [0066]) “AR device 120 can request or system 100/product database 110 can push only data and information, including images, for products in that department (or associated with a particular modular or zone, etc.)”, wherein:
the model data comprises (i) store location data applicable to the entire store, (ii) shelf data applicable to shelves in the store, and (iii) planogram data applicable to the shelves and products associated with the shelves (¶ [0037] “Product databases 110 comprise AR-optimized modular and product data. Conventionally, hardcopy planograms, such as the example planogram 200 depicted in FIG. 2A, are used to manually arrange modulars, modular components (e.g., shelves, hooks, rails, etc.), and products. In embodiments, system 100 uses similar backend planogram data”; ¶ [0039] “ Modular location data and fields include information to locate or identify the intended modular on which the product is to be placed and the types of products to be placed thereon. In FIG. 2B, this can include a store zone at 202, a store aisle at 204, and an aisle section at 205; a product department at 206, a product category at 208, and a product category description at 210”), and
the subset of the model data comprising (iv) the store location data (FIG. 2B “Location ID”), (v) a subset of the shelf data applicable to at least a shelf within a predefined distance of the physical location of the device (¶ [0054] “identifying the desired modular from possible modulars at that location”; ¶ [0066] “For example, if AR device 120 had identified that a user is working in a particular department, such as from product data 201, geolocation of AR device 120 and/or modular 504, or in some other way, AR device 120 can request or system 100/product database 110 can push only data and information, including images, for products in that department (or associated with a particular modular or zone, etc.).”), and (vi) a subset of the planogram data applicable to at least the shelf and a product associated with the shelf (¶ [0044] “Data set 201 is associated with a single product to be placed in a specific location on an assigned modular arranged in an assigned area of a retail store”); and
generating, by the device, a presentation of a scene based on the subset of the model data, the presentation showing a visual representation of the product overlaid on an image of the shelf within the scene (FIG. 8A and 8B; ¶ [0063] “In FIG. 8A, AR device confirms to the user that it is advancing to the next process (“Process 3”), then overlays an image of a product and related information on the proper location on modular 504 via display 302.”; ¶ [0064] “AR device 120 can identify products to be placed in a variety of ways. In FIGS. 8A and 8B, AR device 120 can simply advance left-to-right, etc., across and through the modular, such that the user must locate the next product according to the predefined list or arrangement used by AR device 120 according to product data 201”).
Claim 4, Stansell discloses the method of claim 1. Stansell further discloses, wherein the virtual model is generated by at least:
receiving product data associated with the product, the product data indicating a location of the product on the shelf and comprising one or more of a shape of the product, a visual representation of product packaging of the product, or an image associated with the shape of the product (¶ [0038] “ Referring to FIG. 2B, an example data set 201 for one product is shown.”); and
associating, in the model data, the shelf data with the product data (¶ [0039] “Modular location data and fields include information to locate or identify the intended modular on which the product is to be placed and the types of products to be placed thereon. In FIG. 2B, this can include a store zone at 202, a store aisle at 204, and an aisle section at 205; a product department at 206, a product category at 208, and a product category description at 210.”; FIG. 2A; FIG. 2B).
Claim 5, Stansell discloses the method of claim 4. Stansell further discloses, wherein the shape of the product includes at least one of a height, width, or length of the product (¶ [0042] “Product arrangement data and fields include information about how the product is to be placed on the modular. In FIG. 2B, this can include a number of horizontal facings (how many of the product should be arranged horizontally in the assigned modular section) at 228… a product height at 236, a product width at 238, and a product depth at 240”).
Claim 11, Stansell discloses the method of claim 1. Stansell further discloses, wherein the planogram data is generated by at least:
assigning, to the shelf, product data associated with the product, wherein the product data includes a product identifier, product dimensions, and a product location within the shelf (FIG. 2A; ¶ [0040] “Product location data and fields include information to properly place the product on the modular. In FIG. 2B, this can include Modular Section at 214 and Location Identification at 216.”; ¶ [0041] “Product identification data and fields include information about the particular product to be placed. In FIG. 2B, this can include the product Universal Product Code (UPC) at 218, an item number (which can be specific to the product, manufacturer and/or retailer) at 220, item description (such as a name of the product) at 224, and an item price at 226.”; ¶ [0042] “Product arrangement data and fields include information about how the product is to be placed on the modular. In FIG. 2B, this can include …, a product height at 236, a product width at 238, and a product depth at 240, and a coordinate”).
Claim 12, Stansell discloses the method of claim 1. Stansell further discloses, wherein determining the subset of the model data comprises:
sending a query to a datastore storing the virtual model, the query indicating the store and the virtual location of the device (¶ [0052] “the received data 201 can be limited based on store”; ¶ [0054] “ In the case of (2), locating the modular (404) can include the user providing input to AR device 120 in order to request and receive the relevant data. This input can comprise … visual input (e.g., standing in front of a desired modular and “scanning” markers or other identifying information on the modular by AR device 120, using artificial intelligence to “read” information on product packaging or identify a type of product being viewed), or geolocation input (e.g., identifying a current location of AR device 120 by geolocation system 310, and identifying the desired modular from possible modulars at that location or by determining a direction of vision of the user of AR device 120).”); and
receiving the subset of the model data from the datastore based on the query (¶ [0052] “In operation, and referring to FIG. 4, AR device 120 communicates with product database 110 via communications system 130 to receive data set 201 for a particular modular or other area to be stocked, at 402”; ¶ [0054] “identifying the desired modular from possible modulars at that location or by determining a direction of vision of the user of AR device 120”).
Claim 15, Stansell discloses the method of claim 1. Stansell further discloses, wherein the device is an augmented reality (AR) device (¶ [0047] “AR device 120”), and wherein generating the presentation of the scene comprises generating a presentation of an AR scene by at least:
determining a field of view of the AR device within the AR scene (¶ [0054] “ In the case of (2), locating the modular (404) can include the user providing input to AR device 120 in order to request and receive the relevant data. This input can comprise … visual input (e.g., standing in front of a desired modular and “scanning” markers or other identifying information on the modular by AR device 120, using artificial intelligence to “read” information on product packaging or identify a type of product being viewed), or geolocation input (e.g., identifying a current location of AR device 120 by geolocation system 310, and identifying the desired modular from possible modulars at that location or by determining a direction of vision of the user of AR device 120)”); and
determining a portion of the subset of model data corresponding to the field of view, wherein the visual representation includes one or more products within the portion of the subset of planogram data overlaid on the image of the shelf within the AR scene (¶ [0063] “ AR device 120 guides the user through product placement similar to label placement, and an example is depicted in FIGS. 8A and 8B. In FIG. 8A, AR device confirms to the user that it is advancing to the next process (“Process 3”), then overlays an image of a product and related information on the proper location on modular 504 via display 302.”).
Claim 18, Stansell discloses the method of claim 1. Stansell further discloses, wherein the physical location of the device is determined by:
generating, by the device, an image showing a marker installed in the store (¶ [0054] ““scanning” markers or other identifying information on the modular by AR device 120”);
determining an identifier of the marker based on processing of the image (see above citation to ¶ [0054]; ¶ [0055] “Markers can be used to provide identifying information that can be machine-read by AR device 120. The identifying information can comprise alpha-numerics, machine-readable codes (e.g., QR code, RFID, bar code), or some other identifiers”);
determining, from the virtual model a physical location of the marker based on the identifier (¶ [0052] “In operation, and referring to FIG. 4, AR device 120 communicates with product database 110 via communications system 130 to receive data set 201 for a particular modular or other area to be stocked, at 402. In one embodiment, this can be carried out in one of at least two ways:…(2) a user identifies a particular modular to be stocked, such as by walking up to it and seeing it needs stocking, and interacts with AR device 120 to obtain the relevant data set 201, in which case activities 402 and 404 in FIG. 4 are reversed”); and
determining the physical location of the device based on the physical location of the marker and the processing of the image (¶ [0052]; ¶ [0054]).
Claim 19, Stansell discloses the method of claim 1. Stansell further discloses, wherein the virtual location of the device is determined from the virtual model based on a lookup that uses the physical location of the device (¶ [0054] “geolocation input (e.g., identifying a current location of AR device 120 by geolocation system 310, and identifying the desired modular from possible modulars at that location or by determining a direction of vision of the user of AR device 120)”).
Claim 20, Stansell discloses the method of claim 1. Stansell further discloses, the operations further comprising:
determining, by the device, a subsequent physical location of the device in the store, wherein the subsequent physical location is different from the physical location (¶ [0054] “geolocation input (e.g., identifying a current location of AR device 120 by geolocation system 310, and identifying the desired modular from possible modulars at that location or by determining a direction of vision of the user of AR device 120)”; Examiner notes the geolocation input identifies a current location of the device. Therefore as the user navigates the store, there subsequent locations are also determined.);
determining a subsequently virtual location of the device that corresponds to the subsequent physical location (¶ [0054] “and identifying the desired modular from possible modulars at that location or by determining a direction of vision of the user of AR device 120”);
sending a query to a data store that stores the virtual model, the query indicating the subsequent virtual location or the subsequent physical location (¶ [0052] “In operation, and referring to FIG. 4, AR device 120 communicates with product database 110 via communications system 130 to receive data set 201 for a particular modular or other area to be stocked, at 402. In one embodiment, this can be carried out in one of at least two ways: … (2) a user identifies a particular modular to be stocked, such as by walking up to it and seeing it needs stocking, and interacts with AR device 120 to obtain the relevant data set 201, in which case activities 402 and 404 in FIG. 4 are reversed.”); and
receiving, from the data in response to the query a different subset of the model data (¶ [0052] “receive data set 201 for a particular modular”); and
updating the presentation in the scene based on the different subset of the model data (¶ [0063] “AR device 120 guides the user through product placement similar to label placement, and an example is depicted in FIGS. 8A and 8B. In FIG. 8A, AR device confirms to the user that it is advancing to the next process (“Process 3”), then overlays an image of a product and related information on the proper location on modular 504 via display 302”; also see ¶ [0052] “In operation, and referring to FIG. 4, AR device 120 communicates with product database 110 via communications system 130 to receive data set 201 for a particular modular or other area to be stocked, at 402.”).
Claim 21, which is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for method claim 1. Claim 21 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim 22 which is directed to a system, recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for method claim 1. Claim 22 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stansell in view of Cheshire et al. (US 2023/0385916 A1).
Claim 2, Stansell discloses the method of claim 1. Stansell further discloses, wherein the virtual model is generated by at least:
receiving the store location data that includes a two dimensional (2D) floor plan of the store, the 2D floor plan indicating at least the shelf, a location of the shelf in the store, and horizontal dimensions of the shelf (¶ [0037] “Conventionally, hardcopy planograms, such as the example planogram 200 depicted in FIG. 2A, are used to manually arrange modulars, modular components (e.g., shelves, hooks, rails, etc.), and products. In embodiments, system 100 uses similar backend planogram data, updated with additional fields and data”);
receiving, for the shelf identified in the 2D floor plan, at least a vertical dimension associated with the shelf ( FIG. 2A; ¶ [0073] “Instead of merely optimizing a theoretical design, system 100 is tied to real-world physical locations, dimensions and objects, requiring sophisticated location determination and awareness in real-time”).
Stansell does not explicitly disclose limitations associated with a three dimensional (3D) model for the shelf. However, Cheshire et al. – which like Stansell is directed to generating virtual store environments – teaches:
generating a three dimensional (3D) model for the shelf based on the horizontal dimensions and at least the vertical dimension (Cheshire ¶ [0076] “The 3D shelving units 402, 404, and 406, their respective dimensions, structural elements, and other features, such as how many shelves per shelving unit, may be loaded from memory 106 and/or database 105”); and
generating the model data, the model data comprising the 3D model of the shelf and associating the 3D model with the location of the shelf in the store (¶ [0076] “ Virtual 3D area 400A is depicted as a shelving area, which may be generated as described herein by the algorithm of method 200. As shown for FIG. 4A, virtual 3D area 400A comprises 3D shelving units 402, 404, and 406 that are shown positioned next to each within virtual 3D area 400A. The 3D shelving units 402, 404, and 406, their respective dimensions, structural elements, and other features, such as how many shelves per shelving unit, may be loaded from memory 106 and/or database 105”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the 3D model as taught by Cheshire in the method of Stansell because three-dimensional (3D) models of physical products or packages corresponding to real-world products or packages are useful in virtual reality shopping environments, e-commerce environments and gaming environments (Cheshire ¶ [0002]).
Claim 6, Stansell discloses the method of claim 4. Stansell further discloses, wherein the planogram data comprises at least a subset of a model of the product (see “Size”, “Product” and “Type” in FIG. 2A) and … the shelf (FIG. 2A).
Stansell in view of Mani does not explicitly disclose limitations associated with a 3D model of the shelf. However, Cheshire further teaches a subset of a 3D model of the shelf (Cheshire ¶ [0063] “ At block 202, method 200 comprises loading, from the memory, a matrix file (e.g., a planogram matrix file (e.g., for example, a PSA file) comprising metadata of a virtual product area. In various aspects, the virtual product area may comprise a 3D shelf or aisle of a retail area”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the 3D model as taught by Cheshire in the method of Stansell and Mani because three-dimensional (3D) models of physical products or packages corresponding to real-world products or packages are useful in virtual reality shopping environments, e-commerce environments and gaming environments (Cheshire ¶ [0002]).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stansell in view of Gruttadauria (US 2008/0147475 A1).
Claim 7, Stansell teaches the method of claim 1. Stansell does not disclose limitations associated with location-based statistical data. However, Gruttadaria – which like Stansell is directed to providing visualizations of shelf space – teaches, further comprising:
associating location-based statistical data with the shelf data or product data that is included in the virtual model, wherein the location-based statistical data comprises first location-based statistical data that is based on values measured for the shelf or the product over a past period of time (Gruttadaria: ¶ [0032] “Product sales data 233 may indicate how frequently units of a particular product are sold. That is product sales data 233 provides a sales rate for products included in a state-of-the shelf simulation. In one embodiment, the product sales data may be tied to the actual sales made by a particular retail location over a specified period of time (e.g., some period of minutes, hours, days, weeks, etc.) for a given product, group of products, or product category”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the location-based statistical data as taught by Gruttadauria in the method of Stansell because there is a need for techniques to provide a state-of-the-shelf analysis that conveys the state of the shelf as it changes over time (Gruttadauria ¶ [0009]).
Claim 10, the combination of Stansell in view of Gruttadauria teaches the method of claim 7. Stansell does not disclose limitations associated with location-based statistical data, however Gruttadauria further teaches: wherein the first location-based statistical data comprises foot traffic data associated with the location of the shelf, view data associated with the location of the product on the shelf, or acquisition data of units of the product from the shelf (Gruttadauria ¶ [0032] “In one embodiment, the product sales data may be tied to the actual sales made by a particular retail location over a specified period of time (e.g., some period of minutes, hours, days, weeks, etc.) for a given product, group of products, or product category”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the location-based statistical data as taught by Gruttadauria in the method of Stansell because there is a need for techniques to provide a state-of-the-shelf analysis that conveys the state of the shelf as it changes over time (Gruttadauria ¶ [0009]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stansell in view of Soon-Shiong (US 2014/0129393 A1).
Claim 13, Stansell discloses the method of claim 12. Stansell does not disclose limitations associated with updating the planogram data, however Soon-Shiong – which like Stansell is directed to virtual planogram management – teaches, further comprising:
sending, to the datastore, a request to change product data in the subset of the planogram data, wherein the change is associated with at least one of a product spatial location, a product type, or a product dimension, wherein the request causes an update to the planogram data, wherein the update comprises the change to the product data (Soon-Shiong ¶ [0074] “Thus, a virtual marketplace can be configured to display the items that are present in a physical marketplace, and update according to the changes made in the physical marketplace. … A dynamic planogram can be used to generate a corresponding virtual freezer on display 600 available inside a grocery store, or remote to, the grocery store. This virtual freezer would comprise, from left to right, representations of 5 CPK.TM. frozen pizzas, 3 Hot Pockets.TM., and 7 Marie Calendars.TM. chicken pot pies. If a frozen pizza is removed from the physical freezer (e.g., for purchase by a shopper, relocation, etc.), the frozen pizza can be removed from the virtual freezer in real-time or substantially real-time”; ¶ [0075] “Planogram manager 710 interacts with planogram sever 720 to create, update, instantiate, or otherwise manage virtual planogram 770. Planogram server 720 generates a planogram 770 in accordance with information provided by planogram manager 710, possibly based on input provided by vendors 730, 740, 750, 760, or others.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the updating of the planogram as taught by Soon-Shiong in the method of Stansell because there is still a need for improved apparatuses, systems, and methods for providing interactive virtual marketplaces (Soon-Shiong ¶ [0009]).
Claim 14, the combination of Stansell in view of Soon-Shiong teaches the method of claim 13. Stansell does not disclose limitations associated with updating the planogram data, however Soon-Shiong further teaches, the operations further comprising updating the visual representation in the scene to show the change overlaid on the image of shelf within the AR scene, wherein the scene is an augmented reality (AR) scene (Soon-Shiong: ¶ [0074] “If a frozen pizza is removed from the physical freezer (e.g., for purchase by a shopper, relocation, etc.), the frozen pizza can be removed from the virtual freezer in real-time or substantially real-time. If the planogram used to display items in the freezer is configured to instruct the replacement of the frozen pizza with a strawberry fruit bar, the dynamic planogram used to generate the virtual freezer can configure the display to present a representation of a strawberry fruit bar in place of the frozen pizza, also in real time or substantially real-time.”; also see ¶ [0083] “For example, the planogram can include rules that govern placement of virtual items (i.e., images of real-world objects) on a shelf in an augmented reality view on the display relative to items actually present on the shelf”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the updating of the planogram as taught by Soon-Shiong in the method of Stansell because there is still a need for improved apparatuses, systems, and methods for providing interactive virtual marketplaces (Soon-Shiong ¶ [0009]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the rationale relied on by the Office Action unfairly characterizes the claim”, and that “amended claim 1 does not recite certain methods of organizing human activity”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim (MPEP 2106.04). The claim does not need to explicitly recite a “user” to set forth or describe managing personal behavior. Claim 1 recites “generating ... a presentation of a scene based on the subset of the model data, the presentation showing a visual representation of the product overlaid an image of the shelf within the scene”. Presentation, when given its plain meaning, refers to the act of conveying information to an audience. The information used to generate this presentation, as recited, comprises “planogram data applicable to at least the shelf and a product associated with the shelf” and planograms are understood to be a visual merchandising tool that shows how and where to place products on a retail shelf. Accordingly, the claims set forth activities of managing personal behavior (conveying where to place a product on a shelf), and also sales activity (visual merchandising activities). The recited elements which are outside of the abstract idea (e.g., “determining, using the device, a physical location of the device in a store”) are properly identified and considered in prong two and step 2B. However, examiner notes that the processing performed by the device is simply “determining ... a physical location of the device in a store” which is performable in the human mind. Similarly, the generation of a presentation is simply recited as “generating ... a presentation of a scene based on the subset of model data” which is performable by the human mind using pen and paper. For at least these reasons, the Examiner maintains that claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
On pages 13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “since pending claim 1 includes elements related to a ‘presentation of a scene based on the subset of the model data, the presentation showing a visual representation of the product overlaid on an image of the shelf within the scene’ in combination with the other recited elements, the claimed embodiments solve specific technical problems and offer technical advantages such as increasing speed of rendering and reducing computing resources used which would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art”. Applicant further argues “one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the claim involves the use of a practical application at least due to the recitation of the device and the database used to perform the recited method steps”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. Applying the abstract idea “using the device” or “by the device”, without any description on how the determination of physical location of the device, presentation of a scene, etc., are performed, 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". Additionally, gathering data “stored in a database” for use in the claimed scene presentation is mere-data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea and considered insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The recited “database” is additionally used in its ordinary capacity to store data which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2105.05(f).
In response to Applicant’s arguments directed to a technical improvement, Examiner notes that the selective transmission of location-specific subsets of model data is insignificant extra-solution activity under “Selecting a particular data source of type of data to be manipulated”. These activities include, for example, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). “[C]ollecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information) are within the realm of abstract ideas” (Electric Power Group). As such, recited determination of a subset of model data is abstract activity. Additionally, presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. Similarly to the patent ineligible claims in Electric Power Group, the instant claims are directed to determining (collecting) particular information in the form of a subset of model data and merely presenting the results through ordinary means (“generating, by the device, a presentation of a scene”). Accordingly, Examiner maintains that the claims do not recite a technical improvement to a technical problem.
Paragraph [0024] of Applicant’s Specification states “[b]y transmitting or otherwise making available the subset of model data for scene rendering on the user device that corresponds to the current detected location of the user device, the accuracy of the rendered scene is improved because only locally-relevant model data will be considered” and, “the speed of the scene rendering for display on the user device is increased because the scene does not need to be rendered based on the entire model data and also usage of computer resources is reduced by only having to transmit to and/or store the location-specific subset of the model data”. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(a), the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claims do not recite “rendering” or otherwise identify any particular tool for the recited presentation. Neither do the claims recite “transmitting” or identify any particular tool for transmitting the subset of model data. Rather than focusing on a specific improvement in how computers carry out one of their basic functions, such as storage and retrieval of data as in Enfish, the instant claims are focused on alleged advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put (selecting particular information for a computer to present via existing capabilities). Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that claims are directed to an abstract idea because the additional elements merely “apply” the abstract idea on a generic computer, which does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in step 2a, prong two.
On page 14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the Patent Office has not met their prima facie burden of proof under Step 2B. Applicant further argues “a finding that the additional elements are not well-understood, routine, and conventional is warranted because of the technical benefits described in the Specification (e.g., paragraph [0024]).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. An inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea itself. “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290-91.
As explained above, the alleged technical benefits described in ¶ [0024] of the Specification are attributed to abstract activities of selecting, collecting, and analyzing particular content and presenting the results –without identifying a particular tool for the presentation. The claims generally link these abstract activities to performance by a “device”, which the Specification demonstrates is entirely conventional (see ¶ [0068] “Any suitable computer system or group of computer systems can be used for performing the operations described herein”, ¶ [0074] “A presentation device 616 can include any device or group of devices suitable for providing visual, auditory, or other suitable sensory output”). Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the claims do not provide an inventive concept in step 2B.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 11, 12, and 15-22 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On page 16 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “A. No cited references describe using the physical location to determine a virtual location that corresponds to the physical location, wherein the virtual location is in a virtual model that is stored in a database and represents a spatial layout of the store”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Upon further consideration, Examiner determines that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a virtual model” representing “a spatial layout of the store” includes the augmented-reality optimized modular planogram data and modular location data described in ¶¶ [0038]-[0039]. This AR data structure encoding spatial relationships between store elements, as illustrated in dimensions in FIG. 2A and coordinates in FIG. 2B, constitutes a virtual model representing a spatial relationships between store elements (modulars). Accordingly, a virtual location in the model corresponding to a physical location includes any position defined in the model’s spatial database. As established in the Office Action and Applicant’s Remarks, Stansell ¶ [0054] describes identifying AR-optimized modular planogram data entries in a database based on looking the AR-optimized modular planogram data entries up using inputs that identify a physical location. This identification of planogram data entries, which include coordinates defined by the model, using an input physical location is a determination of a virtual location corresponding to the physical location. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Stansell discloses “determining, by the device and using a modeling system and the physical location, a vir