DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/10/2026 has been entered.
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments dated 7/9/2026 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-10, 12-16, 18-22 are pending and rejected herein.
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.
1. Claims 21 and 22 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.
Regarding Claim 21
Claim 21 recites “at least one processing unit configured to perform the operations of claim 1.” Such a recitation renders the scope of the claim unclear, as it does not specify which operations of claim 1 the processing unit is configured to perform. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear as to how to avoid infringement of such a claim. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the specific operations of claim 1 the claimed processing unit is configured to perform.
Regarding Claim 22.
Claim 22 recites “the method comprising the operations of claim 1.” Similar to claim 21 above, such a recitation renders the scope of the claim unclear, as it does not specify which operations of claim 1 the method comprises. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear as to how to avoid infringement of such a claim. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the specific operations of claim 1 that the method comprises.
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.
2. Claims 1-10, 12-16, 18-22 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.
Claims 1-10, 12-16, 18-22 are directed to initiating actions based on ongoing customer journeys, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-10, 12-16, 18 recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Claims 19 and 21 recite a system comprising a processing unit. Claims 20 and 22 recite a method with at least one step. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (manufacture, apparatus, process).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which actions are initiated based on ongoing customer journeys, including through the facilitation of consumer-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
receiving customer journey data associated with an ongoing customer journey, the ongoing customer journey involves an individual in a retail store, the customer journey data indicates a trajectory in the retail store;
while the ongoing customer journey is in progress, analyzing the customer journey data to determine information associated with the individual; wherein the analysis comprises at least determining a predicted path or dwell pattern of the individual from the trajectory;
using the information associated with the individual to select an action associated with the individual;
wherein the action includes offering while the ongoing customer journey is in progress, an online purchase opportunity to the individual, the online purchase opportunity being associated with a delivery of a selected product from a first destination to a second destination without passing through the retail store:
analyzing the information associated with the individual to select at least one of the product or a price associated with the selected product based on the predicted path or dwell pattern; and
initiate the selected action based upon the predicted path or dwell pattern of the individual and profile of the individual.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a customer to initiate a selected action associated with the customer’s journey within a retail store. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
and a device associated with the individual
is based on data captured using an indoor positioning instrument associated with the device and
of the device
using a display and/or audio instrument associated with the device
generating a digital signal configured to
an online
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“and a device associated with the individual”, “is based on data captured using an indoor positioning instrument associated with the device”, “of the device”, “using a display and/or audio instrument associated with the device”, “generating a digital signal configured to”). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. At least paragraphs 38-58 list numerous acceptable technological implementations of the invention using known, existing elements, and indicate that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Regarding Claims 19, 20, 21, 22
Independent Claims 19 and 20 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent claims 21 and 22 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claim 2
While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “wherein the device is a shopping cart”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding Claims 3-10, 12-18
Dependent claims 3-10 and 12-18 merely set forth embellishments to the abstract idea, and they do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention. Accordingly, they are rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 11
Claim 11 sets forth:
wherein the selected action includes presenting particular content to the individual
and wherein the operations further comprise selecting the particular content based on the information associated with the individual
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of initiating actions based on ongoing customer journeys, including facilitating interaction between consumers and businesses. While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “using a display instrument associated with the device”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
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.
3. Claims 1, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjolund et al. (US 20160171547 A1, hereinafter Sjolund) in view of Gadre et al. (US 20150039461 A1, hereinafter Gadre) and Rademaker (US 20130346237 A1).
Regarding Claim 1
Sjolund discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a software program comprising data and computer implementable instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations for initiating actions based on ongoing customer journeys, the operations comprising:
receiving customer journey data associated with an ongoing customer journey, the ongoing customer journey involves an individual and a device associated with the individual in a retail store, the customer journey data is based on data captured using an indoor positioning instrument associated with the device and indicates a trajectory of the device in the retail store; (Sjolund: at least ¶7-16)
while the ongoing customer journey is in progress, analyzing the customer journey data to determine information associated with the individual; (Sjolund: at least ¶7-16)
using the information associated with the individual to select an action associated with the individual; and generating a digital signal configured to initiate the selected action. (Sjolund: at least ¶7-16)
Sjolund does not explicitly disclose, but Gadre teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the action includes offering, while the ongoing customer journey is in progress, an online purchase opportunity to the individual, the online purchase opportunity is associated with a delivery of a selected product from a first destination to a second destination without passing through the retail store, and wherein the operations further comprise analyzing the information associated with the individual to select at least one of the product or a price associated with the selected product. (Gadre: at least ¶38)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sjolund, with the features of Gadre, since such a modification would have facilitated providing information to a shopper in a physical retail store regarding items on a shopping list or recommended items and facilitated the user's ability to efficiently navigate a physical retail store or warehouse. (Gadre: ¶72)
Sjolund further does not explicitly disclose, but Rademaker teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the analysis comprises at least determining a predicted path or dwell pattern of the individual from the trajectory; the selected action based upon the predicted path or dwell pattern of the individual and an online profile of the individual (Rademaker: see at least ¶39, 66)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sjolund, with the features of Rademaker, since such a modification would have helped customers efficiently obtain products without negatively impacting other tasks scheduled throughout the day. (Rademaker: ¶3)
Regarding Claims 19-22
Claims 19-22 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claim 6
Sjolund further discloses:
wherein the information associated with the individual is further based on a profile associated with the individual (Sjolund: at least ¶109-116), and
Sjolund does not explicitly disclose, Gadre teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the profile is based on a shopping list associated with the individual (Gadre: at least ¶38)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sjolund, with the features of Gadre, since such a modification would have facilitated providing information to a shopper in a physical retail store regarding items on a shopping list or recommended items and facilitated the user's ability to efficiently navigate a physical retail store or warehouse. (Gadre: ¶72)
Regarding Claim 11
Sjolund further discloses:
wherein the selected action includes presenting particular content to the individual using a display instrument associated with the device (Sjolund: at least ¶109-116: digital signages along path of customed devices), and
wherein the operations further comprise selecting the particular content based on the information associated with the individual (Sjolund: at least ¶79: advertisement selected based on change in path of customers).
Regarding Claim 12
Sjolund further discloses:
wherein the customer journey data further indicates stops of the device during the ongoing customer journey, and wherein the information associated with the individual is based on the stops of the device during the ongoing customer journey (Sjolund: at least abstracts, ¶9,15, 59-61: dwell times in zones)
Regarding Claims 15, 16
Sjolund further discloses:
wherein the customer journey data includes an indication of whether the device returns to a particular region of the retail store after leaving the particular region, and wherein the determination of the information associated with the individual is based on the particular region and on whether the device returns to the particular region of the retail store after leaving the particular region (Sjolund: at least figs. 1-3, ¶74-85)
wherein the customer journey data further includes an indication of a time duration between the leaving the particular region and the returning to the particular region, and wherein the determination of the information associated with the individual is further based on the time duration (Sjolund: at least ¶85)
4. Claims 2-4, 8, 10, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker, as applied above, and further in view of Morton et al. (US 20120271715 A1, hereinafter Morton).
Regarding Claim 2
Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker does not explicitly disclose, but Morton teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the device is a shopping cart (Morton: at least ¶18, 28, 57)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker, with the features of Morton, since such a modification would have married the effectiveness of online advertising to the inherent volume advantage provided by traditional brick-and-mortar retailers. (see at least ¶4 of Morton)
Regarding Claim 3
Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker further discloses:
wherein the information associated with the individual is further based on a profile associated with the individual (Sjolund: at least ¶109-116), and
Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker does not explicitly disclose, Morton teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the profile indicates at least one demographic characteristic associated with the individual (Morton: at least: ¶39, 57)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker, with the features of Morton, since such a modification would have married the effectiveness of online advertising to the inherent volume advantage provided by traditional brick-and-mortar retailers. (see at least ¶4 of Morton)
Regarding Claim 4
Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker further discloses:
wherein the information associated with the individual is further based on a profile associated with the individual (Sjolund: at least ¶109-116), and
Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker does not explicitly disclose, Morton teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the profile is based on past purchases of the individual from at least one completed historic journey of the individual, and wherein the operations further comprise using historic data to analyze activities of the individual in the ongoing customer journey to obtain the purchases from the at least one completed historic journey of the individual. (Morton: at least ¶18, 21, 38, 39)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker, with the features of Morton, since such a modification would have married the effectiveness of online advertising to the inherent volume advantage provided by traditional brick-and-mortar retailers. (see at least ¶4 of Morton)
Regarding Claim 8
Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker does not explicitly disclose, but Morton teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the operations further comprise: analyzing the customer journey data to predict a prospective purchase of the individual; and basing the selection of the action on the predicted prospective purchase. (Morton: at least ¶100, 104)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker, with the features of Morton, since such a modification would have married the effectiveness of online advertising to the inherent volume advantage provided by traditional brick-and-mortar retailers. (see at least ¶4 of Morton)
Regarding Claim 10
Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker does not explicitly disclose, but Morton teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the operations further comprise analyzing the customer journey data to predict a susceptibility of the individual to a recommendation, and wherein the information associated with the individual is based on the predicted susceptibility of the individual to the recommendation. (Morton: at least ¶100)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker, with the features of Morton, since such a modification would have married the effectiveness of online advertising to the inherent volume advantage provided by traditional brick-and-mortar retailers. (see at least ¶4 of Morton)
Regarding Claim 13
Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker does not explicitly disclose, but Morton teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the customer journey data further indicates purchases made by the individual during the ongoing customer journey, and wherein the information associated with the individual is based on the purchases made by the individual during the ongoing customer journey. (Morton: at least ¶20-21)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker, with the features of Morton, since such a modification would have married the effectiveness of online advertising to the inherent volume advantage provided by traditional brick-and-mortar retailers. (see at least ¶4 of Morton)
Regarding Claim 18
Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker does not explicitly disclose, but Morton teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the information associated with the individual includes a plurality of mathematical objects in a mathematical space, and wherein the operations further comprise: calculating a mathematical function of the plurality of mathematical objects to obtain a numerical result value; and basing the selection of the action associated with the individual on the numerical result value. (Morton: at least ¶86: dwell time calculation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker, with the features of Morton, since such a modification would have married the effectiveness of online advertising to the inherent volume advantage provided by traditional brick-and-mortar retailers. (see at least ¶4 of Morton)
5. Claims 5, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker, as applied above, and further in view of Ye et al. (US 20210233110 A1, hereinafter Ye).
Regarding Claim 5
Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker further discloses:
wherein the information associated with the individual is further based on a profile associated with the individual (Sjolund: at least ¶109-116), and
Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker does not explicitly disclose, Ye teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the profile is based on reactions of the individual to presentations made using the display instrument associated with the device. (Ye: at least ¶19, 49, 71)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker, with the features of Ye, since such a modification would have effectively converted conventional brick and mortar retail stores into powerful digital marketing channels that provide targeted digital advertisements to customers of a retail store while the customers shop, thereby providing additional income for retailers and providing an effective marketing tool for various clients. (Ye: ¶72)
Regarding Claim 14
Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker does not explicitly disclose, but Ye teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the customer journey data further indicates content presented to the individual using an instrument associated with the device during the ongoing customer journey, and wherein the information associated with the individual is based on the content presented to the individual. (Ye: at least ¶49-50)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker, with the features of Ye, since such a modification would have effectively converted conventional brick and mortar retail stores into powerful digital marketing channels that provide targeted digital advertisements to customers of a retail store while the customers shop, thereby providing additional income for retailers and providing an effective marketing tool for various clients. (Ye: ¶72)
6. Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker, as applied above, and further in view of Goulart (US 20140092261 A1).
Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker does not explicitly disclose, but Goulart teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a handwritten version of the shopping list; analyzing the handwritten version to obtain a digital version of the shopping list; and further basing the profile on at least one of shapes of characters in the handwritten version, sizes of characters in the handwritten version, spacing between characters in the handwritten version, spacing between words in the handwritten version, or spacing between lines in the handwritten version. (Goulart: at least ¶42, 29, 68)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker, with the features of Goulart, since such a modification would have merely united elements of the prior art references, with no change in their respective functions, and would have yielded predictable results.
7. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker, as applied above, and further in view of Paradise et al. (US 20110145093 A1, hereinafter Paradise).
Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker does not explicitly disclose, but Paradise teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the operations further comprise: analyzing the customer journey data to determine a confidence level associated with the prediction; and further basing the selection of the action on the confidence level associated with the predicted prospective purchase. (Paradise: at least ¶80)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sjolund in view of Gadre and Rademaker, with the features of Paradise, since such a modification would have maximized sales by effectively predicting products a user is likely to purchase (Paradise: see at least ¶79-81)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Step 2A, Prong One of the Mayo/Alice framework, applicant asserts that “[w]hile the claims involve commercial interactions in a retail context, they recite a specific technological process: real-time analysis of individual device trajectory derived from indoor positioning data to drive personalized, actionable e-commerce signals with hybrid physical-digital fulfillment (store-bypassing delivery). This is not a mere abstract idea of "organizing human activity" but a concrete, rules-based technical implementation for improving retail customer engagement systems”. In response, the Examiner asserts that a “real-time analysis of individual trajectory derived from indoor positioning data to drive personalized, actionable commerce signals with hybrid fulfillment (store-bypassing delivery)” would be itself considered a commercial interaction and therefore would fall under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The use of an individual “device”, electronic commerce, and digital retailers merely represent the application of such a commercial concept to a generic technical environment. Accordingly, the claims do recite an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, Prong Two, applicant asserts that the claims “integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application that improves computer-related technology and retail operations.” Specifically, applicant argues that use of
“indoor positioning instrument data to generate a real-time trajectory of an
individual device (e.g., shopping cart or personal device) enables individualized, not
group-based, prediction of path/dwell patterns.” However, use of instrument data to predict a path/dwell pattern is merely the generic computerization of an observation/judgement of a human observer. Applicant further asserts that “[t]his trajectory-derived information is used to select and price a product for an online
purchase opportunity presented on a device-associated display while the journey is
ongoing.” Again, this is the computerization (i.e., presentation on a device display) of a task routinely performed by humans sales personnel. Applicant still further asserts that “[c]ritically, the digital signal configured to initiate the selected action is based upon both
predicted path or dwell pattern of the individual and an online profile of the individual.” As above, this is merely uses generic computerization (“online”) to describe a commercial operation. Applicant still further argues an improvement is provided in that “this trajectory analysis and bypass signaling provides specificity and improvement beyond generic computation, enabling accurate individual targeting and seamless physical-to-digital handoff.” However, “accurate individual targeting” is a purely commercial advantage/improvement, and “physical-to-digital handoff” is no more than presenting an alternate purchasing opportunity (a commercial operation) that happens to be online (“digital”). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that these factors do not indicate integration of the abstract idea into a practical application or any manner of technical improvement.
Applicant further asserts that the claims are analogous to Enfish, in that
“the ordered combination of indoor positioning trajectory analysis + real- time individual profiling + device display + digital signal for bypass fulfillment improves the functioning of retail engagement systems and computer-implemented customer journey management. The additional elements are integral to the improvement, not mere extra-solution activity or generic field-of-use linking.” However, “retail engagement systems” and “customer journey management” are not technical fields, but commercial ones. There is no judicial precedent for improvements to commercial fields or technologies rendering an otherwise ineligible claim eligible.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention is distinguishable from Content Extraction, as the present claims “recite a specific, ordered combination of technological elements that improves the functioning of retail customer engagement systems: real-time analysis of an individual device's trajectory derived from an indoor positioning instrument, determination of predicted path or dwell patterns, individualized selection of product and price, presentation of an online purchase opportunity via a device- associated display/audio instrument while the customer journey is ongoing, and generation of a digital signal transmitted to a remote order fulfillment server to initiate automated store-bypassing delivery. These elements are not extra-solution activity or generic computer implementation, but are integral to a technological improvement that solves specific problems in omnichannel retail (e.g., in-store congestion, stockouts, and friction in transitioning from physical browsing to digital purchase). Accordingly, the claims integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application and are patent-eligible.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection above, the claims do not set forth specific technical operations for performing the claimed commercial process beyond generic application of the claimed process to known technologies, and the specification emphasizes numerous existing technologies that can be used to implement the invention. This emphasis makes clear that the technology used in the claim is not meaningful or particular to the claimed concept, instead acting as a general field of use for the commercial scheme. Additionally, similar to above, the purported improvements (in-store congestion, stockouts, etc.) are commercial in nature, and not technological, and therefore such improvements would not render the claims eligible.
With regard to Step 2B, applicant argues that “the combination of elements is unconventional and provides an inventive concept. The prior art (detailed below) relies on anonymous group aggregation, zone-based fixed signage, camera-based statistical profiling, or reactive stock checks-none teach or suggest real-time individual trajectory-driven selection of a store-bypassing online purchase with automated digital signal initiation to a remote server. This ordered combination was not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art as of the effective filing date. The Office Action characterizes the technological elements (indoor positioning instrument, device-associated display, digital signal) as generic. However, their specific integration to achieve real-time, individual, bypass-fulfillment e-commerce from physical trajectory data is non-generic and reflects an inventive ordered combination that transforms the purported abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application.” In response, the Examiner emphasizes that the tests for eligibility and novelty are separate inquiries, and that the claims’ standing with regard to novelty and/or obviousness over the prior art is irrelevant to eligibility considerations. As noted in the rejection above, the Specification, not the Examiner, makes clear that the elements used to implement the invention are generic in nature and are utilized for the inherent advantages provided therein.
For the above reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights