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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 11/24/2025 has been considered.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 22, 24-31, 35-39, 41 have NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim(s) 22, 39, 41 are amended.
Claim(s) 103-104 are new.
Claim(s) 22, 24-31, 35-39, 41, 103-104 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
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.
Claim(s) 22, 24-31, 35-39, 41,103-104 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 and thus do not satisfy the criteria for subject matter eligibility.
Step 1
Claim(s) 22, 39, and 41 are all directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong One: Yes
Exemplary claim(s) 22, 39, and 41 recite the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
Claim 1: “
Claim 39, “
Claim 40, “
access the retail establishment layout, wherein at least one location in the retail establishment layout is designated as a fitting room;
receive
access a data structure linking each of the associated products with one of the plurality of wireless tags, wherein the data structure also links each of the associated products with a product family;
determine, based on the received
determine, using the determined location, each particular associated product that is newly present in the at least one location designated as a fitting room by:
maintaining a list of current location determinations of each of the associated products; and
comparing the current location determinations with prior location determinations to thereby determine whether each associated product is newly present in the at least one location designated as the fitting room;
for each particular associated product that is newly present in the at least one location designated as a fitting room, increase an engagement count for the associated product family;
for each associated product family, receive an indication of each sale in the associated product family and increase a sale count for the associated product family;
access a database linking each product family in the establishment to a predetermined location within the retail establishment layout, the predetermined location being a designated location for at least one product from said product family;
determine, based on the
for each particular associated product that is newly not present at the predetermined location linked to its product family, increase a second engagement count for the product family;
calculate a conversion score for the product family based on the engagement count, the second engagement count, and the sale count;
calculate, from the engagement count and sale count for each associated product family, an abandonment score for the product family;
output a first notification if the abandonment score is greater than a first predetermined threshold;
output a second notification if the abandonment score is less than a second predetermined threshold; and
output a third notification if the engagement count is less than a third predetermined threshold.
Claim(s) 22, 39, and 41 disclose(s) an abstract idea of inventory management for tracking, which falls into the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”. More specifically, the claims limitations above have concepts related to: receiving data (A, B, C, H), determining data (D, E, I), comparing data (E.2), storing data (E.1), mathematical calculation using data (F, G. J, K, L), and notifying data (M, N, O) are considered commercial practice known in retail industry.
Further, limitations F, G. J, K, L recites mathematical concepts being used without the recitation of technology or technical improvement.
Claim(s) 22, 24-31, 35-39, 41, 103-104 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: No
Claims 22, 39, and 41 additional elements are:
Claim 1: “at least one wireless receiver in a retail establishment”; “a plurality of wireless tags, wherein each wireless tag is attached to an associated product”;
Claim(s) 1, 39 - “one processor”;
Claims 39, and 41 - “wireless receiver”;
Claims 39, and 41 “wireless tag”;
Claim 39 “A non-transitory computer readable medium”;
The claimed additional elements that perform limitations A, B, C, H are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered merely data gathering / receiving from the tags and database claimed at a high level of generality, and thus are considered nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional elements that perform limitations D, E, I are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered data determination using the data received to determine location, products presence and absence claimed at a high level of generality without the recitation of technological improvement, and thus are considered generality linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and/or field of use; the additional elements that perform limitations E.1 and E.2 are considered nothing more than data being stored and compared claimed at a high level of generality, and thus are considered mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the additional elements that perform limitations F, G. J, K, L are considered nothing more than data being count and use to statical calculations, claimed at a high level of generality, and thus are considered mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the additional elements that perform limitations M, N, O are considered data transmitted based on the result of the calculations, and thus are considered mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; When view in combination, the additional elements merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generality links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and claim(s) 22, 39, 41 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 22, 24-31, 35-39, 41, 103-104 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
Claims 22, 24-31, 35-39, 41, 103-104 are not including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner takes Official Notices that is old and well-known in the retail industry the use of wireless tags and receivers to control inventory.
In addition, the courts have found computer functions claimed at high level of generality as not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e)
Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Claims 22, 24-31, 35-39, 41, 103-104 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 22, 24-31, 35-39, 41, 103-104 are allowed over the prior art.
Hewett et al. (US 20200096599 A1, hereinafter Hewett) and Field-Darragh et al. (US20140279294A1, hereinafter Field-Darragh) are the closest prior art of the record.
Hewett discloses a method and system for estimating RFID tags location in a store. Hewett discloses the one or more items with RFID tags location in the store are interrogated and mapped in 2D or 3D space, see par. 80-90, 97. Also, the method and system of Hewett can determine that each of the item with RFID tags are picked, placed back, or left behind by a customer(s) in all locations of the store such as displays and fitting rooms, see par. 138-139. Further, the method and system of Hewett calculates conversion rate based on sale data and product performance data according to product categories. For example, if an item is viewed 100 times daily and sold 10 times daily, the conversion rate of the item is 10%, par. 214-217.
Hewett does not disclose calculate, from the engagement count and sale count for each associated product family, an abandonment score for the product family;
Althougth Field-Darragh discloses an abandonment rate is calculate -- [0296]-[0297] “examining the movement profile data, one can determine how often items are abandoned in a dressing room, or traded out for another size in the dressing room, and then inspect items that have a greater than normal dressing room abandonment rate or size exchange rate to determine if there is a design, labeling, or manufacturing flaw with an item”; Hewett or Field-Darragh does not disclose output a first notification if the abandonment score is greater than a first predetermined threshold; output a second notification if the abandonment score is less than a second predetermined threshold; and output a third notification if the engagement count is less than a third predetermined threshold.
Therefore, the combination of all limitations of claims 22, 39, and 41 as a whole have enough details to make the claimed invention novel and unobvious.
Please Note: In order to have the claims allowed, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has to be overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 Rejection filed on 03/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Step2A Prong One, see Remarks pages 15. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is directed the use of data collected to determine products locations so abandonment and engagement scores can be calculated, and thus are considered nothing more than a commercial activity know in the retailer industry.
Applicant argues Step2A Prong Two, see Remarks pages 16-17. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Using wireless tags to avoid using cameras on fitting room because is not permitted is not considered an improvement of technology of technical field; instead, it is considered nothing more than use of a existent technology to collect data without the recitation of an improvement.
Applicant argues Step 2B, see Remarks pages 18-21. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Using wireless tags to avoid using cameras on fitting room because is not permitted is not considered an improvement of technology of technical field; instead, it is considered nothing more than use of an existent technology (wireless tags and readers) to collect data without the recitation of a technology of technical field improvement; the claims do not recite any non-conventional technical implementation and therefore lack an inventive concept under the STEP 2B.
Additionally, Exempla 36 is directed to solve issue of tracking inventory using camera.
Additionally, Examiner does not see any non-conventional and non-generic arrangement like in BASCOM in the claimed invention. To the contrary, the claimed invention is directed to data receiving, using existent technology without an improvement. The ability to receive data and use the data received is not considered non-unconventional arrangement. For at least those reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained, see complete rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA DELIGI whose telephone number is (571)272-0503. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 07:30AM-5PM.
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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached on (571) 272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VANESSA DELIGI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights