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 .
This is a Final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 25 September 2025. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are currently pending, as discussed below. Claim 15 is canceled.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 September 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Amendments to claim 3 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Objections to claims 3 and 14 have been withdrawn. Amendments to independent claims 1, 13 and 20 for “a list of elements” has been fully considered and is persuasive. 112b rejection to claims 1, 6-10, 13, 17-20 for “a list of elements” has been withdrawn. Amendments to independent claims 1, 13 and 20 for “at least one entity” has been fully considered and is persuasive. 112b rejection to claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, 15, 17, 19-20 for “at least one entity” has been withdrawn. Amendments to independent claims 1, 13 and 20 for “a particular location” has been fully considered and is moot since recitations of “a particular location” has been omitted, however, “the location” is still unclear. 112b rejection to claims 1, 13 and 20 for “a particular location” has been withdrawn but is moot in view of new 112b rejection resulting from the amendments. Amendments to claims 4 and 15 has been fully considered and is persuasive. 112b rejection to claims 4 and 15 has been withdrawn. Amendments to claims 6 and 17 has been fully considered and is persuasive. 112b rejection to claims 6 and 17 has been withdrawn. Amendments to claim 11 has been fully considered and is not persuasive. 112b rejection to claim 11 is sustained. It is still unclear if “a location” of claim 11 is the same as “a location” in claim 1. It is unclear if “a location” includes a location of the multiple vendors. And which location of the multiple vendors it is referring to. Since multiple vendors would have multiple locations. Or if one location has multiple vendors. For example, vendor could be a brand offered at a store location where a store offers multiple brands at the same location.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 13 and 20 are indefinite it is unclear what applicant means by “user of the user device is approaching a location having a predetermined association with an in-person action”. It is not clear if a predetermined association means that the user has visited the location in the past, or if a predetermined association means that the user plans to visit the location. It is also unclear what the relationship is between the multiple vendors and a location since a location is singular while multiple vendors are plural. It is unclear which vendor “a location” is referring to since multiple vendors would have multiple locations or if the multiple vendors reside at one location.
Claim 11 are indefinite because it is unclear if “a location” recited in claim 11 is the same or different than “a location” recited in Claim 1. It is unclear how “a location” includes a plurality of vendors and which location of the multiple vendors it is referring to. It is unclear if multiple vendors would have multiple locations or if one location has multiple vendors. For example, vendor could be a brand offered at a store location where a store offers multiple brands at the same location.
Claims 2-12, 14-19 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
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 1-12, 13-19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1 – YES
Claim 1 ,13 and 20 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1, 13 and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, 13 and 20 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for optimizing an in-person trip, comprising:
determining, via at least one processor and based on a user interaction between a user and a user device, that the user of the user device is approaching a location having a predetermined association with an in-person action;
obtaining, via the at least one processor, a list of elements from one or both of an online location and a memory, wherein the list of elements includes at least one item the user intends to purchase;
filtering, via at least one processor, the list of elements based on whether an element is designated by the user for the in-person action;
identifying, via the at least one processor, multiple vendors associated with the list of elements;
generating, via the at least one processor, directions that indicate a path to the location and through the multiple vendors associated with the list of elements;
receiving, via the at least one processor, an indication from the user device that the user device has determined that the user has arrived at the location;
in response to receiving the indication, causing the user device to output the directions.
Claim 13 recites:
A computer-implemented method for optimizing an in-person trip, comprising:
detecting, via a global positioning sensor (GPS) of a user device, an approach of a user of the user device to a location having a predetermined association with an in-person action;
transmitting, via at least one processor and to a server system, an indication of the detecting of the approach;
receiving, from the server system, directions that indicate a path through at least one vendor associated with the location and to at least one element from a list of elements designated by the user for in-person action, the list of elements having been designated by the user for the in-person action by: obtaining the list of elements from one or both of an online location and a memory; and filtering the list of elements based on whether an element is designated by the user for the in-person action, wherein the list of elements includes as least one item the user intends to purchase;
detecting, via the at least one processor, that the user has arrived at the at least one vendor; and
in response to detecting that the user has arrived, causing a display of the user device to output the directions.
Claim 20 recites:
A computer-implemented method for optimizing an in-person trip, comprising:
determining, via at least one processor and based on a user interaction between a user and a user device, that the user has an in-person-action intention associated with a location;
obtaining, via the at least one processor, a list of elements designated by the user for in-person action, wherein the list of elements is obtained from one or more of (i) an online universal element listing associated with the user or (ii) element listing data included in an electronic application user profile associated with the user, wherein the list of elements includes at least one item the user intends to purchase;
filtering via the at least one processor, the list of elements based on whether an element is designated by the user for the in-person action;
identifying, via the at least one processor, at least one vendor associated with the location, wherein one the identifying of the at least one vendor is optimized based on one or more of:
minimizing a total predicted trip time;
a maximum constrain on the total predicted trip time;
minimizing a total predicted trip distance;
minimizing a total predicted trip cost;
minimizing a total number of vendor visits in the in-person trip;
maximizing a total number of elements from the list of elements included in the in-person trip; or
one or more user-selected destinations to be included in the in-person trip;
generating, via the at least one processor, directions that indicate a path through the at least one vendor and to the at least one element;
receiving, via the at least one processor, an indication from the user device that the user device has determined that the user has arrived at the at least one vendor; and
in response to receiving the indication, causing the user device to output the directions.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, determining that the user of the user device is approaching a location having a predetermined association with an in-person action in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected from a user device (received, detected, based on data from a sensor/gps, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally that they are approaching a store that they need to purchase something from.
Examiner notes that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the determination is a form of making evaluation and judgement based on observation (driver behavior).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for optimizing an in-person trip, comprising:
determining, via at least one processor and based on a user interaction between a user and a user device, that the user of the user device is approaching a location having a predetermined association with an in-person action;
obtaining, via the at least one processor, a list of elements from one or both of an online location and a memory, wherein the list of elements includes at least one item the user intends to purchase;
filtering, via at least one processor, the list of elements based on whether an element is designated by the user for the in-person action;
identifying, via the at least one processor, multiple vendors associated with the list of elements;
generating, via the at least one processor, directions that indicate a path to the location and through the multiple vendors associated with the list of elements;
receiving, via the at least one processor, an indication from the user device that the user device has determined that the user has arrived at the location;
in response to receiving the indication, causing the user device to output the directions.
Claim 13 recites:
A computer-implemented method for optimizing an in-person trip, comprising:
detecting, via a global positioning sensor (GPS) of a user device, an approach of a user of the user device to a location having a predetermined association with an in-person action;
transmitting, via at least one processor and to a server system, an indication of the detecting of the approach;
receiving, from the server system, directions that indicate a path through at least one vendor associated with the location and to at least one element from a list of elements designated by the user for in-person action, the list of elements having been designated by the user for the in-person action by: obtaining the list of elements from one or both of an online location and a memory; and filtering the list of elements based on whether an element is designated by the user for the in-person action, wherein the list of elements includes as least one item the user intends to purchase;
detecting, via the at least one processor, that the user has arrived at the at least one vendor; and
in response to detecting that the user has arrived, causing a display of the user device to output the directions.
Claim 20 recites:
A computer-implemented method for optimizing an in-person trip, comprising:
determining, via at least one processor and based on a user interaction between a user and a user device, that the user has an in-person-action intention associated with a location;
obtaining, via the at least one processor, a list of elements designated by the user for in-person action, wherein the list of elements is obtained from one or more of (i) an online universal element listing associated with the user or (ii) element listing data included in an electronic application user profile associated with the user, wherein the list of elements includes at least one item the user intends to purchase;
filtering via the at least one processor, the list of elements based on whether an element is designated by the user for the in-person action;
identifying, via the at least one processor, at least one vendor associated with the location, wherein one the identifying of the at least one vendor is optimized based on one or more of:
minimizing a total predicted trip time;
a maximum constrain on the total predicted trip time;
minimizing a total predicted trip distance;
minimizing a total predicted trip cost;
minimizing a total number of vendor visits in the in-person trip;
maximizing a total number of elements from the list of elements included in the in-person trip; or
one or more user-selected destinations to be included in the in-person trip;
generating, via the at least one processor, directions that indicate a path through the at least one vendor and to the at least one element;
receiving, via the at least one processor, an indication from the user device that the user device has determined that the user has arrived at the at least one vendor; and
in response to receiving the indication, causing the user device to output the directions.
Regarding the additional limitations of a computer implemented method…, the examiner submits that these limitations apply it merely using a computer (processor) to perform the abstract ideas. The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impost any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1, 13 and 20 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps a computer-implemented method…, amounts to nothing more using a computer (processor) to perform data gathering, displaying, sending and receiving steps. In particular, the receiving and communicating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and performing communications for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-12, and 14-19, do not recite any further limitations that causes the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12, and 14-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 13 and 20.
Therefore, claims 1-12, 13-19 and 20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 20190236686 A1) in view of Zivin (US 20070150369 A1) and Edge et al. (US 20150169597 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Thompson teaches, a computer-implemented method for optimizing an in-person trip, comprising: determining, via at least one processor and based on a user interaction between a user and a user device, that the user of the user device is approaching a location having a predetermined association with an in-person action (The product interface 102 determines the location of actual items at retail stores within a threshold distance of the user’s current location based on historic stores/travel history, see at least, ¶20, Thompson); obtaining, via the at least one processor, a list of elements from one or both of an online location and a memory, wherein the list of elements includes at least one item the user intends to purchase (The product interface 102 receives one or more selections of one or more virtual products by a user associated with a user electronic device 108 where electronic device is connected to a communication network 110 or online location, see at least, ¶18-20, Fig. 1, Thompson); filtering, via at least one processor, the list of elements based on whether an element is designated by the user for the in-person action (the one or more retail product identifiers is filtered by the selections of the virtual products selected by the user, see at least, ¶29, Thompson); identifying, via the at least one processor, multiple vendors associated with the list of elements action (the product interface 102 receives locations of actual products corresponding to the virtual products at a plurality of retail stores and corresponding to the user made the selection of the virtual products, see at least, ¶20, Thompson); generating, via the at least one processor, directions that indicate a path to the location and through the multiple vendors associated with the list of elements; receiving, via the at least one processor, an indication from the user device that the user device has determined that the user has arrived at the location (Fig. 2 flow diagram depicts updating initial locations when the user device is within a first threshold from one of the plurality of retail stores, see at least, ¶29, Thompson); and in response to receiving the indication, causing the user device to output the directions (once inside the store, the product interface 102 may provide an audible direction to the first location of the first retail product, see at least, ¶24, Thompson).
Thompson does not explicitly teach generating, via the at least one processor, directions that indicate a path to the location and through the multiple vendors associated with the list of and in response to receiving the indication, causing the user device to output the directions.
Zivin, directed to a system for determining the optimal travel route by which customers can purchase local goods at the lowest total cost teaches, generating, via the at least one processor, directions that indicate a path to the location and through the multiple vendors associated with the list of elements (Fig. 5 depicts a path through multiple vendors labeled with black circles 1, 2, 3 and 4, see at least, ¶87, Zivin).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Thompson’s method of locating physical items to incorporate the teachings of Zivin which teaches generating, via the at least one processor, directions that indicate a path to the location and through the multiple vendors associated with the list of elements since they are both related to optimizing shopping and incorporation of the teachings of Zivin would find the optimal route to purchase multiple items at a plurality of stores for the lowest cost.
Edge, directed to techniques for locating an item teaches, in response to receiving the indication, causing the user device to output the directions (Fig. 6 depicts the mobile devices 510 of the locating system 500 and receive confirmation provided by users that they are within or outside the store (entity). The locating system 500 may not provide directions to items in the store until the user has confirmed they are physically inside the store, see at least, ¶112, Fig. 6, Edge).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Thompson and Zivin’s method of shopping trip planning to incorporate the teachings of Edge which teaches in response to receiving the indication, causing the user device to output the directions since they are both related to optimizing shopping and incorporation of the teachings of Edge would increase the efficiency of locating an item during a shopping trip and save the shopper time.
Regarding Claim 8, Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the multiple vendors are identified based on a comparison of the list of elements with one or more of (i) inventory information for the multiple vendors or (ii) item category information for the multiple vendors (the control circuit 106 may determine various locations of inventory items of a plurality of retail products throughout one or more retail stores, see at least, ¶19, Thompson).
Regarding Claim 10, Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the identifying of the at least one entity or the directions is optimized based on one or more of: minimizing a total predicted trip time; a maximum constraint on the total predicted trip time; minimizing a total predicted trip distance; minimizing a total predicted trip cost; minimizing a total number of vendor visits in the in-person trip; maximizing a total number of elements from the list of elements included in the in-person trip; or one or more user-selected destinations to be included in the in-person trip (the product interface 102 receives locations of actual products corresponding to the virtual products at a plurality of retail stores and corresponding to the user made selection of the virtual products and providing locations of desired products that are closest to the user minimizing trip distance while shopping, see at least, ¶15, Thompson).
Regarding Claim 12 Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge teaches, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one location associated with the at least one element is determined based on one or more of element location information provided by the multiple vendors or crowd-sourced element location information (the control circuit may determine one or more locations of the one or more retail products corresponding to the retail product identifiers based on the detected retail product identifiers sensed by sensors located in the store, see at least, ¶15, Thompson).
Claims 2-4, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 20190236686 A1) in view of Zivin (US 20070150369 A1) and Edge et al. (US 20150169597 A1) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10 and 12 and further in view of Kravets (US 20160292764 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Thompson teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge does not explicitly teach wherein the location is based on a current location of the user device determined via a positioning device associated with the user device.
Kravets, directed to a system and method for generating a store directory based on a personalized shopping list teaches wherein the location is based on a current location of the user device determined via a positioning device associated with the user device (Fig. 10 depicts a distance filter search for stores within a search radius of the user location which is identified using GPS located in the mobile device, see at least, ¶42, Kravets).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge’s method of shopping trip planning to further incorporate the teachings of Kravets which teaches, wherein the location is based on a current location of the user device determined via a positioning device associated with the user device since they are both related to optimizing shopping and incorporation of the teachings of Kravets would give consumers total control of their shopping expectations, saving time and making their shopping experience more efficient (see at least ¶7, Kravets).
Regarding Claim 3, Thompson in view of Zivin, Edge and Kravets teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising determining the location based on one or more of a current direction of travel of the user device detected by the positioning device, user history data that includes data related to historical in-person trips of the user, or a user instruction received by the user device (Retail stores considered may be within a threshold distance of the user’s current location and/or expected locations based on historic stores, historic travel, expected destination or direction the user is currently traveling, see at least, ¶20, Thompson).
Regarding Claim 4, Thompson in view of Zivin, and Edge teaches, the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge does not explicitly teach wherein the user interaction between the user and the user device includes one or more of: detecting that the user device is approaching the location via a positioning device associated with the user device; receiving a planning request from the user for an in-person trip at a current time via the user device; or receiving a planning request from the user for an in-person trip at one or more of a user-specified time or a user-specified location via the user device.
Kravets, directed to a system and method for generating a store directory based on a personalized shopping list teaches wherein the user interaction between the user and the user device includes one or more of: detecting that the user device is approaching the location via a positioning device associated with the user device; receiving a planning request from the user for an in-person trip at a current time via the user device; or receiving a planning request from the user for an in-person trip at one or more of a user-specified time or a user-specified location via the user device (Fig .10 depicts a distance filter that allows a user to enter a planning request at a user-specified location which is a radius within the user’s current location, see at least,¶42, Fig.10, Kravets).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge’s method of shopping trip planning to further incorporate the teachings of Kravets which teaches, wherein the user interaction between the user and the user device includes one or more of: detecting that the user device is approaching the location via a positioning device associated with the user device; receiving a planning request from the user for an in-person trip at a current time via the user device; or receiving a planning request from the user for an in-person trip at one or more of a user-specified time or a user-specified location via the user device since they are both related to optimizing shopping and incorporation of the teachings of Kravets would give consumers total control of their shopping expectations, saving time and making their shopping experience more efficient (see at least ¶7, Kravets).
Regarding Claim 7, Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge does not explicitly teach wherein the list of elements is obtained from one or more of (i) an online universal element listing associated with the user or (ii) element listing data included in an electronic application user profile associated with the user.
Kravets, directed to a system and method for generating a store directory based on a personalized shopping list teaches wherein the list of elements is obtained from one or more of (i) an online universal element listing associated with the user or (ii) element listing data included in an electronic application user profile associated with the user (Fig. 3 depicts registration of a user (user profile) to create a shopping list (element listing data) that is stored locally in the system, see at least, ¶33, Fig. 3, Kravets).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge’s method of shopping trip planning to further incorporate the teachings of Kravets which teaches, wherein the list of elements is obtained from one or more of (i) an online universal element listing associated with the user or (ii) element listing data included in an electronic application user profile associated with the user since they are both related to optimizing shopping and incorporation of the teachings of Kravets would give consumers total control of their shopping expectations, saving time and making their shopping experience more efficient (see at least ¶7, Kravets).
Regarding Claim 9, Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 8.
Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge does not explicitly teach further comprising: determining one or more similar elements that correspond to one or more elements in the list of elements; wherein the comparison of the list of elements with the inventory information for the multiple vendors takes into account the one or more similar elements.
Kravets, directed to a system and method for generating a store directory based on a personalized shopping list teaches further comprising: determining one or more similar elements that correspond to one or more elements in the list of elements; wherein the comparison of the list of elements with the inventory information for the multiple vendors takes into account the one or more similar elements (Fig. 14, user selects “show inventory” which brings up Fig. 15 which is an inventory list 1503 that displays the list that have inventory matching the shopping list. Selecting matching icon 1505 brings up Fig.16 which displays a list of partially matching store products or similar items or elements in inventory, see at least, ¶47-48, Kravets).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge’s method of shopping trip planning to further incorporate the teachings of Kravets which teaches, further comprising: determining one or more similar elements that correspond to one or more elements in the list of elements; wherein the comparison of the list of elements with the inventory information for the multiple vendors takes into account the one or more similar elements since they are both related to optimizing shopping and incorporation of the teachings of Kravets would give consumers total control of their shopping expectations, saving time and making their shopping experience more efficient (see at least ¶7, Kravets).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 20190236686 A1) in view of Zivin (US 20070150369 A1) and Edge et al. (US 20150169597 A1) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10 and 12 and further in view of Goulart (US 20140108193 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge does not explicitly teach further comprising: in response to determining a change in a location of the user device, causing the user device to update the directions.
Goulart, directed to techniques for optimizing a shopping agenda teaches, further comprising: in response to determining a change in a location of the user device, causing the user device to update the directions(Fig. 7 depicts the route determination module 314 which can be configured to receive a location of the user while the user is shopping and if the user departs from the recommended route, update the route based on the current location, see at least, ¶78, Fig. 7, Goulart).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge’s method of planning a shopping trip to incorporate the teachings of Goulart which teaches further comprising: in response to determining a change in location of the user device, causing the user device to update the directions since they are both related to optimizing shopping techniques and incorporation of the teachings of Goulart would increase accuracy of the shopping route directions provided to the User so that the user is following the most updated instructions to locate shopping items more accurately.
Regarding Claim 6, Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Edge, directed to techniques for locating an item further teaches, wherein: in response to determining that the user has completed a stage of the in-person trip, causing the user device to update the directions to display a next stage of the in-person trip; completion of the stage of the in-person trip is determined based on one or more of: a comparison between a location of the user device with the at least one location associated with the at least one element; image data extracted from one or more images taken of at least one element; (locating system may be able to recognize items from a photograph or video input by the user that items have been found, see at least, ¶57, Edge); or a user instruction received via the user device (Fig. 5, user indicate that the next item found via a single flick, see at least, ¶57, fig. 56, Edge); and the next stage of the in-person trip includes one or more of: a next element of the at least one elements(Fig. 5, after user indicated that eggs 410 were found in store 60, the locating system and the user may agree that the next item to be found is pineapple 430, see at least, ¶51, fig. 56, Edge); a next vendor of the multiple vendors; or a conclusion of the in-person trip.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kravets’s method of shopping trip planning to incorporate the teachings of Edge which teaches wherein: in response to determining that the user has completed a stage of the in-person trip, causing the user device to update the directions to display a next stage of the in-person trip; completion of the stage of the in-person trip is determined based on one or more of: a comparison between a location of the user device with the at least one location associated with the at least one element; image data extracted from one or more images taken of at least one element; or a user instruction received via the user device; and the next stage of the in-person trip includes one or more of: a next element of the at least one elements; a next vendor of the multiple vendors; or a conclusion of the in-person trip since they are both related to optimizing shopping and incorporation of the teachings of Edge would increase the efficiency of locating an items during a shopping trip and save the shopper time.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 20190236686 A1) in view of Zivin (US 20070150369 A1) and Edge et al. (US 20150169597 A1) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10 and 12 and further in view of Lin et al. (US 20100082447 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Thompson in view of Zivin and Edge teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Edge, directed to techniques for locating an item further teaches, wherein the at least one element is associated with an element category (Fig. 11 block 1030 depicts determining two items (elements) are of the same category such as cereal (element category), see at least, ¶116, Fig.11, Edge).
Kravets in view of Edge does not explicitly teach and with a location of the at the multiple vendors associated with the element category
Lin, directed to systems and methods for providing shopping-related information to a consumer teaches, and with a location of the at the multiple vendors associated with the element category (Fig. 17 depicts shop list screen 378 which list of location of multiple vendors associated with and element category (groceries), see at least, Fig. 17, Lin).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kravet’s method of planning a shopping trip to incorporate the teachings of Edge which teaches wherein the at least one element is associated with an element category and the teachings of Lin which teaches and with a location of the at the multiple vendors associated with the element category since they are both related to optimizing shopping and incorporation of the teachings of Edge and Lin would increase efficiency of shopping for a list of items by locating the location of an item and categorizing by the item during a shopping trip to increase the likelihood the item will be found in the particular store.
Claims 13-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 20190236686 A1) in view of Zivin (US 20070150369 A1) and Kravets (US 20160292764 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Thompson teaches, A computer-implemented method for optimizing an in-person trip, comprising: detecting an approach of a user of the user device to a location having a predetermined association with an in-person action (The product interface 102 determines the location of actual items at retail stores within a threshold distance of the user’s current location based on historic stores/travel history, see at least, ¶20, Thompson); transmitting, via at least one processor and to a server system, an indication of the detecting of the approach; receiving, from the server system, directions that indicate a path through at least one vendor associated with the location and to at least one element from a list of elements designated by the user for in-person action (the system directs the user to selected products that are closest to the user and that are located along a shopping route through a particular retail store, see at least, ¶24, Thompson), the list of elements having been designated by the user for the in-person action by: obtaining the list of elements from one or both of an online location and a memory (The product interface 102 receives one or more selections of one or more virtual products by a user associated with a user electronic device 108 where electronic device is connected to a communication network 110 or online location, see at least, ¶18-20, Fig. 1, Thompson); and filtering the list of elements based on whether an element is designated by the user for the in-person action (the one or more retail product identifiers is filtered by the selections of the virtual products selected by the user, see at least, ¶29, Thompson), wherein the list of elements includes as least one item the user intends to purchase (The product interface 102 receives one or more selections of one or more virtual products by a user, see at least, ¶20, Fig. 1, Thompson); detecting, via the at least one processor, that the user has arrived at the at least one vendor (Fig. 2 flow diagram depicts updating initial locations when the user device is within a first threshold from one of the plurality of retail stores, see at least, ¶29, Thompson); and causing a display of the user device to output the directions (the product interface 102 may provide an audible direction to the first location of the first retail product, see at least, ¶24, Thompson).
Thompson does not explicitly teach detecting, via a global positioning sensor (GPS) of a user device and in response to detecting that the user has arrived, causing a display of the user device to output the directions.
Kravets, directed to a system and method for generating a store directory based on a personalized shopping list. teaches, detecting, via a global positioning sensor (GPS) of a user device (user location which is identified using GPS located in the mobile device, see at least, ¶42, Kravets).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Thompson’s method of determining a location of a user to incorporate the teachings of Kravets which teaches detecting, via a global positioning sensor (GPS) of a user device since they are both related to optimizing shopping and incorporation of the teachings of Kravets would give consumers total control of their shopping expectations, saving time and making their shopping experience more efficient.
Edge, directed to techniques for locating an item teaches, and in response to detecting that the user has arrived, causing a display of the user device to output the directions (Fig. 6 depicts the mobile devices 510 of the locating system 500 and receive confirmation provided by users that they are within or outside the store (entity). The locating system 500 may not provide directions to items in the store until the user has confirmed they are physically inside the store, see at least, ¶112, Fig. 6, Edge).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Thompson and Kravet’s method of shopping trip planning to incorporate the teachings of Edge which in response to detecting that the user has arrived, causing a display of the user device to output the directions since they are both related to optimizing shopping and incorporation of the teachings of Edge would increase the efficiency of locating an item during a shopping trip and save the shopper time.
Regarding Claim 14, Thompson in view of Kravets and Edge teaches, the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the detecting is based on one or more of: a current location of the user device determined via the GPS, a current direction of travel of the user device detected by the GPS, user history data that includes data related to historical in-person trips of the user, or a user instruction received by the user device (Retail stores considered may be within a threshold distance of the user’s current location and/or expected locations based on historic stores, historic travel, expected destination or direction the user is currently traveling, see at least, ¶20, Thompson).
Regarding Claim 18, Thompson in view of Kravets and Edge teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 13.
Kravets, directed to a system and method for generating a store directory based on a personalized shopping list further teaches wherein the list of elements is further obtained from one or more of (i) an online universal element listing associated with the user or (ii) element listing data included in electronic application data on the user device (Fig. 3 depicts registration of a user (user profile) to create a shopping list (element listing data) that is stored locally in the system, see at least, ¶33, Fig. 3, Kravets).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Thompson and method of shopping trip planning to incorporate the teachings of Kravets which teaches, wherein the list of elements is further obtained from one or more of (i) an online universal element listing associated with the user or (ii) element listing data included in electronic application data on the user device since they are both related to optimizing shopping and incorporation of the teachings of Kravets would give consumers total control of their shopping expectations, saving time and making their shopping experience more efficient (see at least ¶7, Kravets).
Regarding Claim 19, Thompson in view of Kravets and Edge teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the at least one entity is identified based on a comparison of (i) one or more of the list of elements, or one or more similar elements that correspond to one or more elements in list of elements with (ii) one or more of inventory information for the at least one entity, or item category information for the at least one entity (the control circuit 106 may determine various locations of inventory items of a plurality of retail products throughout one or more retail stores, see at least, ¶19, Thompson).
Regarding Claim 20, Thompson teaches, A computer-implemented method for optimizing an in-person trip, comprising: determining, via at least one processor and based on a user interaction between a user and a user device, that the user has an in-person-action intention associated with a location; obtaining, via the at least one processor, a list of elements designated by the user for in-person action, wherein the list of elements is obtained from one or more of (i) an online universal element listing associated with the user or (ii) element listing data included in an electronic application user profile associated with the user, wherein the list of elements includes at least one item the user intends to purchase (a system for locating a virtual retail product at a physical retail store includes a product interface which is associated with a retail store and operable on a user electronic device where the user selects one or more virtual products which the user intends to purchase, see at least, ¶15, Thompson); filtering via the at least one processor, the list of elements based on whether an element is designated by the user for the in-person action (the one or more retail product identifiers is filtered by the selections of the virtual products selected by the user, see at least, ¶29, Thompson); identifying, via the at least one processor, at least one vendor associated with the location, wherein one the identifying of the at least one vendor is optimized based on one or more of: minimizing a total predicted trip time; a maximum constrain on the total predicted trip time; minimizing a total predicted trip distance; minimizing a total predicted trip cost; minimizing a total number of vendor visits in the in-person trip; maximizing a total number of elements from the list of elements included in the in-person trip; or one or more user-selected destinations to be included in the in-person trip (the product interface 102 receives locations of actual products corresponding to the virtual products at a plurality of retail stores and corresponding to the user made selection of the virtual products and providing locations of desired products that are closest to the user minimizing trip distance while shopping, see at least, ¶15, Thompson); generating, via the at least one processor, directions that indicate a path through the at least one vendor and to the at least one element (the product interface 102 may provide an audible direction to the first location of the first retail product, see at least, ¶24, Thompson); causing the user device to output the directions (the product interface 102 may provide an audible direction to the first location of the first retail product, see at least, ¶24, Thompson).
Thompson does not explicitly teach wherein the list of elements is obtained from one or more of (i) an online universal element listing associated with the user or (ii) element listing data included in an electronic application user profile associated with the user and receiving, via the at least one processor, an indication from the user device that the user device has determined that the user has arrived at the at least one vendor; and in response to receiving the indication, causing the user device to output the directions.
Kravets, directed to a system and method for generating a store directory based on a personalized shopping list teaches, wherein the list of elements is obtained from one or more of (i) an online universal element listing associated with the user or (ii) element listing data included in an electronic application user profile associated with the user (Fig. 3 depicts registration of a user (user profile) to create a shopping list (element listing data) that is stored locally in the system, see at least, ¶33, Fig. 3, Kravets).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Thompson and method of shopping trip planning to incorporate the teachings of Kravets which teaches, wherein the list of elements is obtained from one or more of (i) an online universal element listing associated with the user or (ii) element listing data included in an electronic application user profile associated with the user since they are both related to optimizing shopping and incorporation of the teachings of Kravets would give consumers total control of their shopping expectations, saving time and making their shopping experience more efficient (see at least ¶7, Kravets).
Edge, directed to techniques for locating an item teaches, receiving, via the at least one processor, an indication from the user device that the user device has determined that the user has arrived at the at least one vendor; and in response to receiving the indication, causing the user device to output the directions (Fig. 6 depicts the mobile devices 510 of the locating system 500 and receive confirmation provided by users that they are within or outside the store (entity). The locating system 500 may not provide directions to items in the store until the user has confirmed they are physically inside the store, see at least, ¶112, Fig. 6, Edge).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Thompson and Kravets and method of shopping trip planning to incorporate the teachings of Edge which teaches, receiving, via the at least one processor, an indication from the user device that the user device has determined that the user has arrived at the at least one vendor; and in response to receiving the indication, causing the user device to output the directions since they are both related to optimizing shopping and incorporation of the teachings of Edge would increase the efficiency of locating an item during a shopping trip and save the shopper time.\
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 20190236686 A1) in view of Zivin (US 20070150369 A1) and Kravets (US 20160292764 A1) as applied to claims 13-14, 18 and 20 and further in view of Goulart (US 20140108193 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Kravets in view edge teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 13.
Kravets in view of Edge does not explicitly teach further comprising: determining, via the at least one processor, a change in location of the user device; and updating, via the at least one processor, the directions in response to determining the change in location of the user device.
Goulart, directed to techniques for optimizing a shopping agenda teaches, further comprising: determining, via the at least one processor, a change in location of the user device; and updating, via the at least one processor, the directions in response to determining the change in location of the user device (Fig. 7 depicts the route determination module 314 which can be configured to receive a location of the user while the user is shopping and if the user departs from the recommended route, update the route based on the current location, see at least, ¶78, Fig. 7, Goulart).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kravets in view of Edge’s method of planning a shopping trip to incorporate the teachings of Goulart which teaches further comprising: determining, via the at least one processor, a change in location of the user device; and updating, via the at least one processor, the directions in response to determining the change in location of the user device since they are both related to optimizing shopping techniques and incorporation of the teachings of Goulart would increase accuracy of the shopping route directions provided to the User so that the user is following the most updated instructions to locate shopping items more accurately.
Regarding Claim 17, Thompson in view of Kravets and Edge teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 13.
Edge, directed to techniques for locating an item further teaches, further comprising: in response to determining that the user has completed a stage of the in-person trip, updating the directions to display a next stage of the in-person trip, wherein: determining the completion of the stage of the in-person trip is determined based on one or more of: a comparison between a location of the user device with at least one location associated with the at least one element; image data extracted from one or more images taken of the at least one element (locating system may be able to recognize items from a photograph or video input by the user that items have been found, see at least, ¶57, Edge); or a user instruction received via the user device (Fig. 5, user indicate that the next item found via a single flick, see at least, ¶57, fig. 56, Edge); and the next stage of the in-person trip includes one or more of: a next element of the at least one elements(Fig. 5, after user indicated that eggs 410 were found in store 60, the locating system and the user may agree that the next item to be found is pineapple 430, see at least, ¶51, fig. 56, Edge); a next vendor of the at least one vendor; or a conclusion of the in-person trip.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Thompson in view of Kravets and Edge’s method of shopping trip planning to incorporate the teachings of Edge which teaches further comprising: in response to determining that the user has completed a stage of the in-person trip, updating the directions to display a next stage of the in-person trip, wherein: determining the completion of the stage of the in-person trip is determined based on one or more of: a comparison between a location of the user device with at least one location associated with the at least one element; image data extracted from one or more images taken of the at least one element; or a user instruction received via the user device; and the next stage of the in-person trip includes one or more of: a next element of the at least one elements; a next vendor of the at least one vendor; or a conclusion of the in-person trip since they are both related to optimizing shopping and incorporation of the teachings of Edge would increase the efficiency of locating an items during a shopping trip and save the shopper time.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664