DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to claims on 08/26/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. The effective filing date is 01/30/2023.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/30/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1-Claims 1-10 are directed to a system, which is patent eligible subject matter. Claims 11-19 are directed to a method, which is patent eligible subject matter. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is an article of manufacture, which is patent eligible subject matter. Claims 1-20 pass step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1-The independent claim 1, and similarly claims 11 and 20, recites:
a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon (additional element analyzed in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step B); and
at least one processor operatively coupled to the non-transitory memory (additional element analyzed in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step B), and configured to read the instructions to:
obtain current product location information regarding current products being displayed in a retailer store (obtaining product information is a step of collecting information, which is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)),
obtain recommended assortment information regarding future products to be displayed in the retailer store (obtaining recommendation information is a step of collecting information, which is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)),
execute at least one model to apply the recommended assortment information to generate a plurality of candidate layouts each of which corresponds to a two-dimensional arrangement of the future products to be displayed in the retailer store (making a determination is a step of analyzing information, which is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)),
for each of the plurality of candidate layouts, iteratively input an objective function based on the current product location information, a corresponding set of parameters and a weighted sum of at least one of: a minimum area ratio, a first unprotected rank, a combined propensity score, or a contiguity score to an integer programming model, and for each iteration, execute the integer programming model to generate a score characterizing a maximization of the respective objective function based on maximization of at least one of (i) the minimum area ratio (ii) the first unprotected rank, (iii) the combined propensity score, and (iv) the contiguity score (making a calculation is a step of analyzing information, which is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); additionally, calculations are its own type of abstract idea, as comparing elements can be seen as a mathematical relationship under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721),
execute at least one model to apply the corresponding scores of the respective objective functions for each of the plurality of candidate layouts to generate an optimal layout that optimizes the objective function (generating an optimized layout for a store is the concept of a commercial interaction, particularly sales activities since the goal is to optimize a store layout for sales, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) ii. using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 485, 203 USPQ 812, 816 (CCPA 1979); and iii. offer-based price optimization, which pertains to marketing, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2015)),
generate a planogram based on the optimal layout for the retailer store (generating a planogram based on the optimized layout for a store is the concept of a commercial interaction, particularly sales activities since the goal is to optimize a store layout for sales, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) ii. using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 485, 203 USPQ 812, 816 (CCPA 1979); and iii. offer-based price optimization, which pertains to marketing, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2015)), and
transmit the planogram to a computing device associated with the retailer store for placing at least some of the future products in the retailer store according to the planogram (transmitting the planogram is the act of obtaining information, since it is sending information about a sales activities, and therefore is a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Step 2A, Prong 2-The additional elements of independent claim 1, and similarly claims 11 and 20, include a non-transitory memory, a processor, computing device, programming model and planogram.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they fail to provide elements that are more than tools to implement the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f).
A non-transitory memory, processor and computing device are all elements presented a having instruction on them, and configured to implement the steps described, or is the tool used to transmit information. All of the action the computer elements are doing are how they ordinarily are used, and showcases their standard use as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The programming model is the tool to perform the calculation. Therefore, under MPEP 210605(f) when an additional element is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and specifically when that tool is described in solution only terms, such as the instant claims, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The solution from the model is to generate area ratio, unprotected ranks, propensity score and contiguity scores, but there are no details to how the solution is performed.
The planogram described is the thing that is generated by the calculations and information obtained. It is a specific thing, similar to a map, of where items in a store are to be placed. This is an additional element, since it is a thing created, but it is not more than a means to link the optimization of placement of items with the creation of a map for the items, and does not provide more than a general link to a particular environment. See MPEP 2106.05(e) In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014). In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality. 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85.
Step 2B-The independent claim 1, and similarly claims 11 and 20, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements remain to be computer tools used to implement the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not provide more than a general link to a specific technological environment under MPEP 2106.05(e)
Dependent Claims
Claims 2-3, 10, 12 and 19 add details about the products to be placed on the planogram. Details about the information to be analyzed remains the abstract idea of a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). There are no additional elements to provide integration into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4-6, 9, 13-15, and 18 add computing steps, and the details used in the computing step, and therefore are the action of analyzing information, which is a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The analysis being performed on a computer is the use of the additional element as a tool to implement the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f), and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 7-8, and 16-17 add additional determining steps. Making a determination is considered a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Using a computer to make a determination is using that computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f), and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are not found within the prior art.
The following is a statement of elements not found in prior art:
Claims 1, 11 and 20 recites:
an integer programming model, and for each iteration, execute the integer programming model to generate a score characterizing a maximization of the respective objective function based on maximization of at least one of (i) the minimum area ratio (ii) the first unprotected rank,(iii) the combined propensity score, and (iv) the contiguity score, execute at least one model to apply the corresponding scores of the respective objective functions for each of the plurality of candidate layouts to generate
Claim 4 and 13 recites:
computing the minimum area ratio representing a level of equitability of space allocation for the plurality of product groups;
computing the first unprotected rank representing a level of protection of top products in the plurality of product groups;
computing the combined propensity score representing a deviation of the candidate layout from a current layout of current products; and
computing the contiguity score representing a level of blockiness of the plurality of coded layout portions in the candidate layout.
The need for the claim to complete all four of these very specific mathematical calculations in not found together in prior art, and would not be obvious to combine.
However, claims 1-20 still remain rejected under 101, and amendments would need to be provided to overcome this rejection and integrate the claims into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101
Step 2A, Prong 1- Applicant specifically points to the amended claim language that now includes step (i), (ii), and (iii) to execute the model. However, Examiner notes that the word execute does not add more meaning to the claim limitations. Execution as described in the claim limitation is used to describe running the model on the processor, and therefore, is the process of completing the determination and analysis step. Therefore, the claims can be grouped as either a mental process, because it is using the computer element to perform the analysis by ‘execution’ of the steps on the process, or as a certain method of organizing human activity because the model is executing a plan to determine ideal store layouts, which is don’t to analyze sales and business performance.
Step 2A, Prong 2- Applicant points to the iteratively inputting data into a programming model and then transmitting this to a computing devices leads to network resources being conserved and processing efficiency of the computing device is increased. The iterative nature of the input of information doesn’t actually improve how the computer functions, but rather the alternating of information allows for the system to not be bombarded with information. Therefore, the claim is not providing a technical solution, but rather the solution is slowly feeding the information into the system to improve efficiency. Under MPEP 2106.05(a), improvement to computer functionality need to showcase that the claims does not just add a general purpose computer to an abstract idea, and the implementation of the solution to a problem is based on the software arts. (822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691). Additionally, under MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) that to be more than application of an abstract idea on a computer, to be used as a tool, needs to show more than using the computer as a means to improve efficiency off the abstract idea. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Step 2B- Applicant discusses the steps that are being performed on the processor as the additional elements that provide more than the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(d). However, Examiner looks at MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the focus is whether the additional elements are well understood, routine and conventional, are showcased in a generic manner, at a high level of generality. Therefore, when the claims recite a processor that is configured to perform the instructions of the abstract idea. The processor is recited in a generic manner. Adding multiple instruction on the processor does not change the generality of the processor to accomplish the instruction of obtain, executing a model and generating a plan, would be accomplished using the generic computer.
Regarding 103- the applicant has integrated the proposed amendments from examiner interview. Examiner could not find the totality of the claims in any arrangement of prior art, and therefore the 103 rejection has been removed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0060943 A1 Mattingly et al. teaches store management (Abstract); and US 2016/0104232 A1 Perks et al. teaches mapping a store (Abstract); US 2006/0190341 A1 Riley et al. teaches planogram planning ([0020]); and US 2020/0410426 A1 Palmer et al. teaches making business decisions (Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA E SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9501. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 9:00 AM-5PM 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.
/JESSICA E SULLIVAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights