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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claim 11 has been amended. Claims 1-10 and 19-20 have been previously withdrawn. Claims 11-18 are pending and examined hereinbelow.
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 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 11-18 are drawn to a method which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 11 recites a method comprising the following:
organizing store data for a store into featured labeled data for features indicative of shrink events at the store by labeling the featured labeled data with shrink events and mapping each shrink event to one or more prescriptive action identifiers maintained in a prescriptive action identifier table to produce featured labeled data that associates each shrink event with one or more prescriptive actions;
the featured labeled data to produce, as output, sets of scores for the features and combinations of features, wherein each score represents a likelihood of shrink for a given feature or a given combination of features, and wherein each score above a threshold is produced in combination with one or more prescriptive action identifiers
current feature labeled data associated the store for a current interval of time and obtaining sets of scores that predict future shrink events at the store in intervals of time over a given period, wherein each score is associated with a certain feature or a certain combination of features, and wherein each score is associated with one or more prescriptive actions to take to avoid a corresponding future shrink event; and
integrating the sets of scores.
These steps are directed to predicting risk associated with retail shrink, which amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claim 11 does recite additional elements:
training a machine-learning model (MLM)
processing the trained MLM
a transaction system, security system, and forecasting system
a store application, a store workflow, or a store system
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“training a machine-learning model (MLM)”, “processing the trained MLM”, “a transaction system, security system, and forecasting system”, “a store application, a store workflow, or a store system”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (organizing, training, processing, integrating). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 11, 12, 22, 26, and 33 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Dependent claims
Each of these steps of the dependent claims 12-18 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claim 11 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
Regarding Claim 15
Claim 15 sets forth:
providing the first portion of the featured labeled data as input
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of predicting risk associated with retail shrink, which amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, and human behavior. While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “to a heatmap interface”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 11, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 11-18 is hereby withdrawn pursuant to the amendments file don April 9, 2026.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application by improving the machine learning model.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite specific analysis of store data to avoid a future shrink event, which is an abstract idea. There is no improvement to the actual hardware, but rather analysis of human interactions to make recommendations to predicting risk associated with retail shrink, which amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people. The Examiner also asserts that the training of a machine learning model is recited at such a high level of generality that even if not directed towards the abstract idea is still just displaying data for a human to interpret, which merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regards to the Desjardins the Examiner asserts the use of machine learning is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106), where no specific on the machine learning is claimed at all. The Examiner again asserts that the computer and hardware is not what is being improved, but rather, hopefully, the way the human uses the hardware is being improved, which merely amount to the hardware being used as a tool for implementing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05). The Examiner asserts that using general purpose computer hardware to implement the abstract idea does not make the claims eligible. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claims do not recite any unconventional computer functions. The structural elements as claimed are for mere convenience and the recited claim elements constitute Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. As a result, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is silent on any computer operation and specific technological implementation that would move the claim beyond a general link to a technological environment.
Dependent Claims 12-18 add further limitations to independent claim 11, which are also directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
B. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 11-15, filed April 9, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-18 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Multi-service business platform system having entity resolution systems and methods (US 11775494 B2) teaches a multi-client service system platform that may be part of a multi-service business platform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber Misiaszek whose telephone number is 571-270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30, First Friday Off.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights