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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 03/11/2025 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, 24-25, 39, 41 are amended.
Claim(s) 23, 34, 40, 42 are cancelled.
Claim(s) 22, 24-31, 35-39, 41 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 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: “ access a retail establishment layout, wherein at least one location in the retail establishment layout is designated as a fitting room; receive in the retail establishment, signals from a plurality of tags, wherein each tag is attached to an associated product; access a data structure linking each of the associated products with one of the plurality of tags, wherein the data structure also links each of the associated products with a product family; determine, based on the signals, 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; and 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 signals from the plurality of tags, each particular associated product that is newly not present at the predetermined location linked to its product family; 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; and 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; output a third notification if the engagement count is less than a third predetermined threshold; and generate a product engagement heat map of the retail establishment layout using the predetermined location and the engagement count of each product family.”;
Regarding claim 39, “A non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations for tracking conversion scores of tagged products, the operations comprising:”;
Regarding claim 40, “method for tracking conversion scores of tagged products, the method comprising:”;
The claim(s) 22, 39, and 41 disclose(s) the abstract idea of inventory management for tracking products in a store shelf, and thus fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas.
Particular, the claims 22, 39, and 41, maintain and compare current location determinations of each of the associated products with prior location determinations, increase first engagement count based on location of a product of a product family being a new location such as fitting room, increase a sale count for each product indicated as sale of a product family, also increase second engagement count based on location of a product of a product family not being in a new location such as fitting room. Further, calculates conversion score and abandonment score based on engagements counting and sale counting, and notify abandonment base on different threshold. Also, generate a product engagement heat map with the predetermined location within the retail establishment layout and the engagement count of each product family. Thus, are concepts inventory management and tracking, and are considered a commercial activity.
Claim(s) 22, 24-31, 35-39, 41 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”;
Examiner does not believe the current claimed invention integrates the recited judicial exception identified under Step 2A Prong One into a practical application because the additional elements above represent mere data gathering (e.g., retail establishment layout, wireless signal, data structure, database) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception of the limitations above, and is recited at a high level of generality.
Further, the additional elements also maintain and compare current location determinations of each of the associated products 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 and thus are considered nothing more than saving and comparing data claimed a high level of generality; the additional elements also increase first engagement count based on location of a product of a product family being a new location such as fitting room, increase a sale count for each product indicated as sale of a product family, also increase second engagement count based on location of a product of a product family not being a new location such as fitting room, calculate a conversion score and abandonment score based on the engagements count and sale count, and output a notification depending on different threshold, and thus are considered nothing more than just data comparison and transmission without the recitation of a technological improvement. Further, the additional elements also generate a product engagement heat map of the retail establishment layout using the predetermined /designated location and the engagement count of each product family, and thus are considered nothing more than data being associated on a map claimed at a high level of generally without the recitation of technological improvement. Therefore, the claimed language does not meaningfully limit the claimed invention because merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g.; wireless tracking and computer). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claims 22, 39, and 41 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claim(s) 22, 24-31, 35-39, 41 do not integrate the identified abstract idea above into a practical application, do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, therefore, the claims are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
The next issue is whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process is purely conventional. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are used to count engagements and sale of a product, use the counts to calculate a conversion score and abandonment score, and generate a heat map, and thus generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. The claim is not patent eligible.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicants' claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The claimed invention does not focus on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. {Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354). (Step 2B: NO).
There is no indication that indication that additional elements anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. A VAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350,1355,112 USPQ2d 1093,1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hoteis.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial,Vne claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, VersataDev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,1334,115 USPQ2d 1681,1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363,115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
See MPEP 2106.05(h) The courts have recognized the following as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: ii. Identifying the participants in a process for hedging risk as commodity providers and commodity consumers, because limiting the use of the process to these participants did no more than describe how the abstract idea of hedging risk could be used in the commodities and energy markets, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 595, 95 USPQ2d at 1010; iv. Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016); vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); ix. Specifying that the abstract idea of using advertising as currency is used on the Internet, because this narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014); x. Requiring that the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship that guarantees performance of a transaction (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions, because these limitations simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments, buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Even when the steps are considered in combination, did not amount to an inventive concept.
As for dependent claims 24-31, 35-38, the claims merely recite limitations that further narrow the abstract idea recited on claims 22, 39, and 41 and thus fail to amount significantly more.
Claims are 22, 24-31, 35-39, 41 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 22, 24-31, 35-39, 41 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 13-14. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Generating product engagement heat map of the retail establishment layout using the predetermined location and the engagement count of each product family are still considered part of inventory management for tracking products in a store shelf such as by associate data related to the inventory on a map, and thus are considered nothing more than a commercial activity know in the inventory management field.
Applicant argues Step2A Prong Two, see Remarks pages 14-16. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Generating product engagement heat map of the retail establishment layout using the predetermined location and the engagement count of each product family are considered nothing more than associate data on a map using data. Thus, are not considered a technological improvement, and merely links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (location data on a map) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Applicant argues Step 2B, see Remarks pages 18-22. Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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. The ability to receive data and associate data on a map 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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VANESSA DELIGI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627