DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment on 02/01/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-11, 14-17, and 19-23 are pending; claims 14-17 and 19-23 are withdrawn; and, claims 1-6 and 8-11 are examined below. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 01/06/2021.
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 .
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 1-6, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 1-6, 8-11 relate to process claims. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Claim 1 recites the following abstract idea:
A method, comprising the following steps of: from an article supply device database, which stores arrangement information relating to a layout of article supply devices installed in each of sales areas and article information relating to an article which can be supplied from the article supply devices installed in each of the sales areas, acquiring arrangement information in a predetermined sales area and article information of each of the article supply devices in the predetermined sales area (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Interval Licensing, The patentee claimed an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content.); and
generating, in a user operating terminal, a layout image where an object image of each of the article supply devices corresponding to the layout of the article supply devices in the predetermined sales area is arranged, by using the article information and the arrangement information of the respective article supply devices in the predetermined sales area; and displaying, on a display of the user operating terminal (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(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.)
displaying, on a user operating terminal, a layout image where an object image of each of the article supply devices corresponding to the layout of the article supply devices in the predetermined sales area is arranged, by using the article information and the arrangement information of the respective article supply devices in the predetermined sales area (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: 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)),
wherein the object image includes the article information of the article supply device corresponding to the object image (see e.g. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) citing TLI Communications, The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747.).
When these abstract ideas are viewed alone and in ordered combination (i.e. viewed as a whole), the examiner finds that claim 1 recites abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Claim 1 is not found to integrate the above abstract idea findings into practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of, 1) an article supply device database that stores data; 2) a user operating terminal that generates image and displays image(s). The database is used to store data which can then be accessed, which the examiner finds is using the database in an “apply it” manner. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the user operating terminal, the examiner refers to Applicant’s originally-filed Specification at, [0018] The terminal 2 is, for example, a personal computer, a tablet type computer, a smart phone, a cell phone or the like. This is a standard “apply it” situation, where the abstract idea is being applied onto a standard terminal, such as a user’s smart phone. See MPEP 2106.05(f), As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
For the generating limitation performed by generic mobile device that has been added, this is not integrating into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: ii. Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
When these additional limitations are viewed alone and in ordered combination the examiner finds claim 1 to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B - Claim 1 is not found to recite significantly more. The additional limitation analysis from Step 2A Prong 2 is equally applied to Step 2B. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
For the analysis under well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the examiner refers to the following Berkheimer evidence:
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. AV Auto. 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. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the 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, Versata Dev. 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 also MPEP 2106.05(h) field of use
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
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 [or the claimed, “user operating terminal”], 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).
As a final example, the concepts of collecting data (e.g., “acquiring arrangement information”) and recognizing data within a data set (e.g., “receive, using the user interface, an indication representing selection of the selectable option to add the existing secondary transfer source”) are “undisputedly well-known.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1356 (further noting that its claims “do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology.”).
When these additional limitations are viewed alone and in ordered combination the examiner finds claim 1 to be directed to abstract idea.
Dependent Claims – Claims 2-3 recite mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Claim 4, 5, 6 recites the abstract idea relating to selecting data and updating information (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Interval Licensing, acquiring updated version and updating), and also see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) insignificant extra solution activity of selecting information; see also MPEP 2106.05(d)(2) 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. iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log). Claim 8-11 recites more abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474 (holding that claims to the mental process of “translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit” are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims “read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper”).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 10,304,057 to Powell et al. (“Powell”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0108120 to Venable et al. (“Venable”).
With regard to claim 1, Powell discloses the claimed article supply device managing method (see e.g. Fig. 1A and col. 7, ln. 5-55, the multiple vending machines in the field as the claimed article supply devices; “Each vending machine of the one or more vending machines 106 can include multiple machine selection buttons 106a, a machine-resident second processor (interceptor device) 106b, the machine-resident first processor 106c, and a vending machine controller (VMC) 106d.”), comprising the following steps of:
from an article supply device database, which stores arrangement information relating to a layout of article supply devices installed in each of sales areas and article information relating to an article which can be supplied from the article supply devices installed in each of the sales areas, acquiring arrangement information in a predetermined sales area (see e.g. col. 1, ln. 58—col. 2, ln. 21) and article information of each of the article supply devices in the predetermined sales area (see e.g. col. 1, ln. 58—col. 2, ln. 21; “A set of available product data is generated based on: (1) the received data representing the plurality of vend processors, (2) a plurality of product identifiers for a plurality of products and associated with the plurality of vend processors, and (3) product data for each product of the plurality of products and including a product name, an image, nutritional information, and a description.”); and
displaying, on a display of the user operating terminal (see e.g. mobile device at col. 1, ln. 59), a layout image where an object image of each of the article supply devices corresponding to the layout of the article supply devices in the predetermined sales area is arranged, by using the article information and the arrangement information of the respective article supply devices in the predetermined sales area (see e.g. col. 1. ln. 58—col. 2, ln. 26, a map or layout of the multiple vending machines in the radius, along with the products identified as being associated with said vending machine(s), can be refined and displayed; see also col. 2, ln. 27-59 displaying the mapping/layout image; col. 13, ln. 19-67),
wherein the object image includes the article information of the article supply device corresponding to the object image (see e.g. Fig. 10, col. 18, ln. 4-55).
Powell indicates where the generation of the layout image(s) where an object image of each of the vending machines is arranged, by using all known data, is performed by e.g. a first processing device, and sent to the mobile device. See e.g. Powell, col. 1-2. The claim now recites that the generating of the layout image is performed “in a user operating terminal.” Powell does not appear to teach this. Venable teaches at e.g. [0026] [0056] [0084] [0092] Fig. 5 that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail art to include the ability to not only capture images from a mobile device and send the data the a server, but to also do the image processing, such as a generating a spatial layout of locations of the shelf labels within the store, as shown in Venable, [0056], where this is advantageous in that it allows the mobile device to control a store profile (e.g. 2-D map) which defines the spatial layout. See [0056] and Fig. 5, where the “STORE PROFILE GENERATOR” is part of the mobile device 10, as shown at [0056] The exemplary profile generation system 10 includes a mobile base 20, an image capture assembly 22, and a control unit 24, which are moveable as a unit around the product facility. (emphasis added).
Powell discloses everything except, instead of the store profile generation is performed at the mobile device (as claimed), Powell performs the generating at a server. However, Venable teaches above that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail technology art before the effective filing date to include the ability to have the functionality of store profile generation on the mobile device itself, instead of sending to a server as shown in Powell, where this is beneficial in that a specific mobile device, or multiple mobile devices working together, can create a planagram, real world spatial layout, of the retail store, instead of having to send to another server or another device to do the generating. See Venable [0056]
With regard to claim 2, Powell further discloses where the object image includes at least any of stock information of the article, which can be suppled from each of the article supply devices, price information thereof and explanation information of the article (see e.g. Fig. 10, col. 18, ln. 4-55).
With regard to claim 3, Powell further discloses where the explanation information is information which is written on a paper sheet attached to each of the article supply devices installed in the sales area, or information which is displayed on a display screen of each of the article supply devices installed in the sales area.
With regard to claim 4, Powell further discloses where by selecting the object image on the layout image, the article supply device corresponding to the object image is controlled so as to be selectable (see abstract, “The first processor can receive a signal representing a product selection, associated with a product in the vending machine, from a mobile device.”), and the arrangement information or the article information of the selected article supply device in the article supply device database is controlled so as to be updatable (see e.g. Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 5, Powell further discloses a control is performed so that a number of articles to be replenished into the selected article supply device can be input (see e.g. col. 9, ln. 55—col. 10, ln. 5, where A1, for instance, is out of stock, and that the articles of A1 need to be replenished), and a stock quantity of the selected article supply device in the article supply device database is updated by using the inputted number of articles to be replenished (see e.g. col. 9, ln. 55—col. 10, ln. 5, where the system determines that the product associated with A1 is empty, needs replenishing, and then based on the product associated with A1, determines that B1 also applies to same product, and thereby replenishes the quantity of inventory of that product with the contents of B1).
With regard to claim 6, Powell further discloses where the article supply device database is updated on condition of determination of removal of the selected article supply device, and the layout image in which the object image of the article supply device whose removal is determined is deleted, is displayed (see e.g. col. 18, ln. 3-35).
With regard to claim 8, Powell further discloses where a control is performed so that an arrangement position of an article supply device to be newly installed in the sales area is selectable on the layout image, the article supply device database is updated by the arrangement information and the article information of the article supply device which is newly installed, and a layout image, in which an object image of the article supply device which is newly installed is arranged in the selected arrangement position, is displayed (see e.g. col. 18, ln. 3-55).
With regard to claim 9, Powell further discloses where the layout image comprises a plurality of cells whose positions are respectively identified based on a column and a row thereof, and in the layout image, an object image corresponding to each article supply device is arranged at a position of each cell corresponding to the arrangement position of each article supply device in the predetermined sales area (see e.g. col. 5, ln. 23-31).
With regard to claim 10, Powell further discloses where in the layout image, an image of information indicating that no article supply device is set, is added to cells where no object image is arranged (see e.g. col. 11, ln. 30-60).
With regard to claim 11, Powell further discloses where the layout image is displayed so that a user can recognizes a position of each cell therein (see col. 13, ln. 20-40, mapping shown in app on user device).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner hereby withdraws the previously-made 112 rejections based on the amendments made.
The examiner has reviewed the amendments and arguments relating to the 101 rejections. The examiner maintains that the claims are directed to abstract idea. Capturing an image and generating a layout image based on the captured image, or the like, is not an improvement to the art.
The examiner has reviewed the amendments and arguments relating to the 102 rejections. The concept of performing the action on the mobile device or a server is really a design choice as it just depends on the capacity available on the mobile device, and the like, as an engineer would be able to design the system to be able to perform at one or both. That being said, the examiner has brought in another reference and turned the 102 rejection into a 103 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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.
/PETER LUDWIG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627