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 is in reply to communication filed on 09/11/2025.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 4, 10 and 16 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15 and 17-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 09/11/2025:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101” in pages 15-24.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the obtaining, positioning, identifying, determining, grading, determining, identifying, performing, generating, performing, updating, generating, providing, providing, retrieving, optimizing steps, whether taken individually or collectively, have not been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever, and are abstract idea. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is simply no showing of implementing any of the claim steps, individually or in combination, amounts to a technological improvement, nor the alleged “optimize operations associated with hyper localization across value chain” suggested by Applicant. Although Applicant asserts that “generates a planogram with set of items having highest magnitude of importance by ranking the items and displaying in accordance with rank to the users to gain maximum visibility or attention of the users and multiple dependency lists formed by considering each sales pattern from corresponding magnitude-of-importance of the sales pattern, direction of the magnitude-of-importance, and importance of each item from the corresponding magnitude of importance leads to faster approval by user” the Examiner first notes that managing assorting of items in retail stores (i.e., inventory management) is not reasonably understood as a technology, but instead involves organizing of human activity.
The data collection, recognition, and storage concept described in the claim is similar to the data collection and management concepts that were held to be abstract ideas in Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Although the claim enumerates the type of information that is acquired, stored and analyzed, the Federal Circuit has explained in Electric Power Group and Digitech that the mere selection and manipulation of particular information by itself does not make an abstract concept any less abstract. Further, the claim is not made any less abstract by the invocation of a programmed computer. Unlike Enfish, where the claims were focused on a specific improvement in how the computer functioned, the claim here merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract concepts.
Furthermore, utilizing one or more hardware processors, assortment tool, central database, screen, enabling, by the one or more hardware processors, integration of a plurality of applications that are linked with the central database, and analytical module is mere a generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B. As automating the steps is similar to simply adding the words “apply it,” which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. See, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976. Applicant's Specification acknowledges that nothing more than general purpose computers is needed to implement the invention. Thus, any improvement achieved by automating the claim steps (i.e., using generic computing devices/software) is not a technical improvement, but instead would come from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer rather than the sequence of steps/activities recited in the method itself, which does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claim.
Further, the claims recite steps to calculate/determine data to be displayed to a use. Regardless of user’s display. Displaying data per se is not consider improvements to the user-interface of the software as a technical improvement to the computer. In Core Wireless, the Federal Circuit found that claims for a mobile device user interface were directed to a technical advancement over the prior art because the specification explained that earlier interfaces "required users to drill down through many layers to get to desired data or functionality" and that such prior art interfaces "seem slow, complex and difficult to learn, particularly to novice users." Similarly, in Data Engine, the Federal Circuit held claims to be patent-eligible when they claimed a user-interface that used tabs to move between pages of a 3-D spreadsheet. The court believe that prior art techniques for navigating between multiple pages was burdensome and hindered the user's access to the power of the spreadsheet, while the tab interface "solved this known technological problem in computers." Of course, the simple display of a graphical user interface will not pass step one of will not pass 2nd prong and the step 2B, the claimed user-interface must have some usability improvement over prior art user interfaces.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims amount to an improvement over prior art techniques for assorting of items in retail stores (i.e., inventory management), such an improvement would be considered, at most, an improvement confined within the abstract idea itself, which is not enough to confer eligibility on the claim. For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above arguments.
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 1-3, 5-9, 11-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-3, 5-6 recite a method, directed to a process.
Claims 7-9, 11-12 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 13-15, 17-18 recite one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums, which is directed to a manufacture.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1, 7 and 13 recite the abstract idea of assorting of items in retail stores, see specification [002], (i.e., inventory management). This idea is described by the steps of
Obtaining (a) individual sales for each item among a plurality of items for a category among a plurality of categories at a zip code level from market data for a predefined period, and (b) a plurality of local factors associated with the category at the zip code level;
Positioning (a) the individual sales for each item in a columnar format to enable deriving relationship across the plurality of items within the category and, (b) each of the plurality of local factors in the columnar format to enable relationship across the plurality of local factors;
Identifying (a) a set of sales patterns from linear combinations of individual sales of each of the plurality of items, and (b) a set of local factor patterns from linear combinations of each of the plurality local factors by maximizing relationship between the set of sales patterns and the set of local factor patterns by applying a canonical analysis between the individual sales of each item in columnar format and the plurality of local factors in columnar format;
Determining (a) a plurality of notable sales patterns from among the plurality of sales patterns and a plurality of notable local factor patterns from among the plurality of local factor patterns based on Wilks' lambda criterion provided by the canonical analysis, and (b) a magnitude-of importance of each notable sales pattern and a magnitude-of-importance of each notable local factor pattern based on variance contribution by corresponding notable sales pattern and notable local factor pattern respectively provided by the canonical analysis;
Grading the set of items under each notable sales pattern in accordance with the magnitude of importance of each notable sales pattern with plurality of ranks including a first rank, a second rank, a third rank;
Determining a) a set of notable items for each notable sales pattern, from among the plurality of items based on a significance parameter provided by the canonical analysis, and b) a magnitude-of importance of each notable item among the set of notable items for each of the notable sales patterns, wherein the magnitude-of-importance of each notable item is measured using canonical loadings provided by the canonical analysis;
Identifying a set of localized complementary notable items and a set of localized competitive notable items from among the set of notable items for each of the notable sales pattern based on direction of the magnitude for -of-importance, wherein (a) the set of localized complementary notable items a corresponding notable sales pattern is identified from a positive magnitude-of-importance of the set of notable items, and (b) the set of localized competitive notable items for the corresponding notable sales pattern is identified
based on a negative magnitude-of-importance of the set of notable items, wherein the complementary effect or competitive effect that exist across items within a category that are specific to an ethnic group or a type of lifestyle or a type of weather condition is established through the columnar format of items and factors by canonical analysis;
performing automation of a plurality of rules for an assortment tool based on (a) the identified set of localized complementary notable items for a notable sales pattern which are labeled as group A, and (b) the identified set of localized competitive items for the notable sales pattern which are labeled as group B, and wherein the assortment tool is enabled to ensure (i) if one or more items are selected from a group, then all items in the group are selected, and (ii) if all the items in group A are selected, then all the items in group B are deselected and if all the items in group A are deselected, then all the items in group B are selected;
generating a planogram of hyper localized items to be placed on a rack of a shelf, wherein a set of items that are influenced by localization are assigned to the shelf, wherein the set of items with the first rank are displayed as a group or arranged near each other in the rack which has maximum visibility or attention;
performing quantification of hyper localization (HL) of (a) each notable item among the notable items, (b) each category among the plurality of categories, ( c) each store among a plurality of stores storing one or more of the plurality of items for one or more of the plurality of categories, and (d) each store cluster among a plurality of store clusters for one or more of the plurality of categories formed by the plurality of stores;
updating ( a) the identified set of sales patterns and the measure of importance of each sales pattern and identified set of notable items under each sales pattern, (b) the identified set of localized complementary notable items and the identified set of localized
competitive notable items, and (c) the quantified measure of hyper localization (HL)
of each notable item, each category, each store and each store cluster and hyper
localization values, supply chain and logistics, packaging, online sales, retail operations related with localization involving items, categories, stores and store clusters across value chain that enables implementation of hyper localization operations;
generating warning signs when an item in one group is moved to another group during packaging;
providing warning signs when localized items are mixed with non-localized
items for packaging;
providing suggestions by listing the items or the categories or the stores or the store clusters in order of hyper localization measures by which the effort for user in locating required items or categories is minimized;
retrieving a dependency list for selected category and a one way complimentary de-list and
displaying user approval, wherein the dependency list is list of items in which sale of each item is complementing other items within a category and the one way complimentary de-list is formed from one sales pattern having items with opposite direction of magnitude in which items under one direction form a group and items under opposite direction forms another group, wherein when the user selects an automatic mode, the dependency list for the selected category is retrieved, wherein multiple dependence lists are formed by considering each sales pattern form corresponding magnitude-of-importance of the sales pattern, direction of the magnitude-of-importance, and importance of each item from the corresponding magnitude of importance which leads to faster approval by user; and
enabling to optimize operations associated with hyper localization (HL) across value chain, procurement, transport, logistic, storage, packaging, sales in brick and mortar stores, online sales, display, and advertisement, wherein optimization of operations comprises (1) route optimization for transport and logistics associated with HL items, categories, stores, (2) placement of HL item or category within transport vehicle (3) identification of distribution centers and (4) placement of HL item or category within distribution center,
wherein the optimization of operations is carried out through based on identified hyper localized items or categories or stores or store clusters by giving importance to respective magnitude-of-importance of hyper localization which increases accuracy of optimization of operations,
These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the above abstract idea limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claims to simply recites steps of following rules or instructions to assorting of items in retail stores (i.e., inventory management). The Examiner additionally finds the claims to be similar to an example the courts have identified as being a certain method of organizing human activity:
I) considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
II) Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue in Voter Verified was voting. The patentee claimed "[a] method for voting providing for self-verification of a ballot comprising the steps of" presenting an election ballot for voting, accepting input of the votes, storing the votes, printing out the votes, comparing the printed votes to votes stored in the computer, and determining whether the printed ballot is acceptable. 887 F.3d at 1384-85, 126 USPQ2d at 1503-04. The Federal Circuit found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation", which is a "fundamental activity that forms the basis of our democracy" and has been performed by humans for hundreds of years. 887 F.3d at 1385-86, 126 USPQ2d at 1504-05.
III) Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 911 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1011. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "rules for playing games", which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. 911 F.3d at 1160-61; 129 USPQ2d at 1011.
The data collection, recognition, and storage concept described in the claim is similar to the data collection and management concepts that were held to be abstract ideas in Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Although the claim enumerates the type of information that is acquired, stored and analyzed, the Federal Circuit has explained in Electric Power Group and Digitech that the mere selection and manipulation of particular information by itself does not make an abstract concept any less abstract. Further, the claim is not made any less abstract by the invocation of a programmed computer.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: one or more hardware processors, the assortment tool, central database, central database is linked by multiple applications associated with multiple operations related to item procurement, an 1/0 interface, respective application, screen, integration of a plurality of applications that are linked with the central database, analytical module,
Claim 7: a memory storing instructions; one or more Input/Output (1/0) interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more 1/0 interfaces, an assortment tool, and a central database, the central database is linked by multiple applications associated with multiple operations related to item procurement, respective application, screen, integration of the plurality of applications that are linked with the central database, analytical module,
Claim 13: One or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors, assortment tool, central database, the central data base is linked by multiple applications associated with multiple operations related to item procurement, an 1/0 interface, respective application, screen, integration of a plurality of applications that are linked with the central database, analytical module,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Claims 2, 8 and 14 recite more about the abstract idea found in the independent claims such as “the quantification of hyper localization for each notable item is performed by considering the magnitude-of-importance of each of the notable item and the magnitude-of-importance for a corresponding notable sales pattern from among the plurality of notable sales patterns” that falls under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity Group. Claims 2 and 8 do not recite additional elements that can integrate the exception into a practical application or can be considered amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the abstract idea. Claim 14 is tied to a computer (one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums) is mere an instruction to use a generic computer, as was addressed for claim 1, 7 and 13 to which applicant is referred.
Claims 3, 9 and 15 recite more about the abstract idea found in the independent claims such as “the quantification of hyper localization for each category is performed based on sum of the magnitude-of-importance of each notable sales pattern for each category” that falls under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity Group. Claims 3 and 9 do not recite additional elements that can integrate the exception into a practical application or can be considered amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the abstract idea. Claim 15 is tied to a computer (one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums) is mere an instruction to use a generic computer, as was addressed for claim 1, 7 and 13 to which applicant is referred.
Claims 5, 11 and 17 recite more about the abstract idea found in the independent claims such as “priority of display of items in a rack for a store is decided based on order of magnitude of importance of corresponding sales pattern among a plurality of set of sales patterns for a category” that falls under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity Group. Claims 5 and 11 do not recite additional elements that can integrate the exception into a practical application or can be considered amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the abstract idea. Claim 17 is tied to a computer (one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums) is mere an instruction to use a generic computer, as was addressed for claim 1, 7 and 13 to which applicant is referred.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 recite more about the abstract idea found in the independent claims such as “lost sales due to missed items in historical assortment is captured and potential of stores are considered for hyper localization strategies by applying market data for obtaining individual item sales” that falls under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity Group. Claims 6 and 12 do not recite additional elements that can integrate the exception into a practical application or can be considered amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the abstract idea. Claim 18 is tied to a computer (one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums) is mere an instruction to use a generic computer, as was addressed for claim 1, 7 and 13 to which applicant is referred.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15 and 17-18, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Distinguished Over Prior Art
The claims, in present form, render the claimed invention allowable over the prior art. The prior art found by the examiner, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the applicant's claimed invention. The closest prior art found by the examiner is:
Sharma et al. (US 2021/0042771 A1) teaches facilitating use of select hyper-local data sets for improved modeling are provided. Aspects include receiving customer data associated with a customer by a workbench platform and determining an accuracy of a customer model using the customer data. For each of a plurality of hyper-local data sets, aspects also include determining an increase in model accuracy based on use of the hyper-local data set and the customer data. Aspects include identifying at least one group of hyper-local data sets of the plurality of hyper-local data sets that result in similar increases in model accuracy.
Rao et al. (US 11861459 B2) teaches a providing automatic determination of recommended hyper-local data sources and features for use in modeling is provided. Responsive to training each model of a plurality of models, aspects include receiving client data, a use-case description and a selection of hyper-local data sources, generating a client data profile, determining feature importance and generating a use-case profile.
Yet, not Sharma nor Rao , alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the Applicant's claimed invention. The prior art, Sharma and/or Rao does not teach the claimed invention as the independent claims 1, 7 and 13 recited. A detailed reasons of allowance would be issued by the examiner based on further responses from the applicant. Accordingly, the examiner recommends addressing the outstanding rejections above.
Conclusion
1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627