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 .
Detailed Action
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s filing of 12/23/2025.
The effective filing date of the present application is 08/09/2023.
Claims 1 – 9, 11, 13, and 19 – 27 are pending; claims 10, 12, 14 – 18, presently cancelled, claims 19 – 27 being new.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's reply and remarks of 12/23/2025 have been entered.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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 26 and 27 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.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "from the image capturing unit" in its dependency to claim 25, which further depends to claim 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither of the dependent upon claims recite an image capturing unit.
Claim 27 inherits this indefiniteness in its dependency to claim 26.
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 – 9, 11, 13, and 19 – 27, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a method and systems. Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims describe evaluating the performance of retail outlets with regards to compliance with required specific conditions and a planogram. This evaluation requires observing certain data (monitored data) and then making a judgment (determining scores) as to the performance of the outlet. Observations, evaluations, and judgments are concepts that recite a mental processes and are an abstract idea.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of claims 7 and 13, contains elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method of assessing performance of a plurality of outlets, the method comprising:
receiving monitored data related to a plurality of predefined parameters corresponding to each product stored in each of the plurality of outlets, wherein the monitored data is received from one or more sensor clusters deployed in each of the plurality of outlets;
determining planogram compliance based on the monitored data and a predefined planogram associated with each of the product;
determining an ambience score of each product category in each of the plurality of outlets based on the corresponding monitored data, the determined planogram compliance, and one or more compliance conditions pre-set for each of the plurality of predefined parameters of the corresponding product category, wherein each of the product is associated with one of each of the product category;
determining a compliance assessment score for each of the plurality of outlets based on the ambience score of each of the product category of each of the plurality of outlets; and
assessing performance of each of the plurality of outlets based on the compliance assessment score.
Claims 1, 7, and 13, recite only the following additional elements:
one or more sensor clusters;
an assessment system comprising: a processor; and a memory, communicatively
coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores processor-executable instructions;
a non-transitory computer readable medium including instruction stored thereon.
These elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in the disclosure, at Specification [0034 – 0035 and 0048 – 0049] and Figures 1B and 2 as filed. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea on a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (one or more sensor clusters; a processor; memory; non-transitory computer readable medium including instruction stored thereon), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 8, and 11, contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract ideas found in claims 1 and 7. Recitations to parameters (to be observed and evaluated), comparing and generating scores (evaluating), and one or more actions based on the compliance assessment (a judgment), are further refinements of what to observe and what judgment is needed. They are recitations directed to the mental process described. Furthermore, these claims include recitations that amount to no more than simply instructing one to implement the abstract idea on a computer, using the generically described devices noted above; (the assessment system comprising: a processor; and memory, wherein the memory stores processor-executable instructions; one or more sensor cluster; non-transitory computer readable medium including instruction stored thereon). This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Dependent claims 3, 4, and 9, contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract ideas found in claims 1 and 7. Recitations to type of, and utilization of, sensors, are further recitations to no more than simply instructing one to implement the abstract idea on a computer, using the generically described devices noted above; (one or more sensor cluster). This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Dependent claims 19 and 25 contains limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. Recitations to thresholds of temperature, humidity, locations are refinements of the data observed and evaluated. Therefore, they are directed to the abstract mental process. Furthermore, these claims amount to no more than simply using the generically described devices noted above; (one or more sensor cluster). This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Dependent claims 20 – 23, 26, and 27, contains limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 7. Recitations to image capture, are directed to the data observed and evaluated. Furthermore, these claims amount to no more than simply using the generically described devices noted above; (image capturing unit). This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Dependent claim 24 contains a limitations that is instructing one to perform the abstract idea (determining compliance) in a computer environment. “In an embodiment, the assessment system may use trained Artificial Intelligence (AI) model to perform image processing and compare the captured images.” This is generic description of this technology and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 1 – 9, 11, 13, and 19 – 27, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1 – 9, 11, 13, and 19 – 27, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman (US 2021/0081883), in view of Adato (US 2021/0398067).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 13, Whitman discloses: an assessment system for assessing performance of a plurality of outlets, the assessment system comprising: a processor; and a memory, communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores processor-executable instructions; and, non-transitory computer readable medium including instruction stored thereon; (see [0252 – 0255] detailing a system for monitoring quality of perishable goods/services throughout a distribution chain);
a method of assessing performance of a plurality of outlets, the method comprising: receiving monitored data related to a plurality of predefined parameters corresponding to each product stored in each of the plurality of outlets, wherein the monitored data is received from one or more sensor clusters deployed in each of the plurality of outlets; (first, see [0103] where a system for monitoring the condition of a plurality of individual items of sale is disclosed; see also [0134] detailing a method for monitoring and reporting the data. See also Figures 20 – 22. Next, at [Abstract], Whitman details the system may include a plurality of micro-climate sensors disposed on a floor of a store, each structured to generate store floor data corresponding to items of sale on the floor. At [0007[, Whitman outlines a sensor cluster may include micro-climate sensors that remain stationary and provide data regarding environment, and/or equipment related data, e.g., power usage of a cooler, associated with the items of sale. Lastly, Whitman discloses a plurality of outlets when detailing the supply chain may include one or more sources, distribution centers, and/or stores; and, offers examples of stores include supermarkets, farmer's markets, food pantries, cafeterias, restaurants, and/or food stands locations in stores);
determining a compliance assessment score for each of the plurality of outlets based on the ambience score of each of the product category of each of the plurality of outlets; (at [0202], a method for determining a score is disclose and score values are compared to compliance with standards and SOPs);
assessing performance of each of the plurality of outlets based on the compliance assessment score; (see [Abstract], disclosing monitored store analysis data, as a measure of the store’s (outlet) compliance).
Not disclosed by Whitman is:
determining planogram compliance based on the monitored data and a predefined planogram associated with each of the product;
determining an ambience score of each product category in each of the plurality of outlets based on the corresponding monitored data, the determined planogram compliance, and one or more compliance conditions pre-set for each of the plurality of predefined parameters of the corresponding product category, wherein each of the product is associated with one of each of the product category.
However, Adato discloses a method for planogram compliance in retail stores and teaches identifying products and monitoring planogram compliance using analysis of image data, at [0006]; thus, teaching a), above.
Adato further teaches compliance scoring for metrics of a specific retail store, at [0230]. Adato further adds other product parameters, at [0183]. Adato teaches reports that summarize these scoring methods and illustrates these reports; see Figures 11A – 11C; thereby, teaching b), above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to score stores per an ambience (storage) and other parameter monitoring method, per the method of Adato, within Whitman’s method for determining compliance, because this provides a desired result of removing human workers from having to visit the stores, as well as offering techniques that are more efficient and aligned. See Adato’s background at [0003].
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the combination of Whitman and Adato discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 7, above. Whitman further discloses: wherein the plurality of predefined parameters are associated with at least one of: temperature of a storage area of each of the product, humidity of the storage area, location of each of the product in the storage area and images of associated with each of the product stored in the storage area, and wherein the images are indicative of at least one of: a layout associated with each of the product in the storage area, and a brand name of each of the product in the storage area; (first, see [0159] detailing SOPs (parameters) are set for temperatures for freezers. See also [0117] teaching temperature, humidity and location of a product being monitored. Whitman adds image processing at [0181-0188].)
Regarding claims 3 and 9, the combination of Whitman and Adato discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 7, above. Whitman further discloses: wherein the one or more sensor cluster comprises at least one of: temperature sensor, humidity sensor, an image capturing unit, a location sensor, a cellular module, or a motion sensor; (see [0117] where the sensors monitor environmental data, such as temperature and humidity).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Whitman and Adato discloses all the limitations of claim 3, above. Whitman further discloses: wherein the one or more sensor clusters deployed in each of the plurality of outlets varies in terms of type of sensors, number of sensors, position of sensors, and manner of deployment of sensors based on one or more outlet characteristics; (first, see [0105] where it is disclosed “sensors 212 may be associated with, and/or attached to, the items of sale 210 at any portion of the supply chain 110, e.g., at a source 112, distribution center 116, store 118, a location in a store, a customer location, and/or any point/location therebetween”. Thus, disclosing number of, position, and manner of deployment. See also [0117] where the sensors monitor environmental data, such as temperature and humidity. Thus, disclosing type of sensor.).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, the combination of Whitman and Adato discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 7, above. Whitman further discloses: wherein assessing the performance comprises: comparing the compliance assessment score of each outlet of the plurality of outlets with predefined acceptable threshold level associated with the compliance assessment score; and generating a rating for each of the plurality of outlets based on the comparison and one or more outlet characteristics, wherein the one or more outlet characteristics comprises at least one of: a location of the outlet, or a class of the outlet and a retail channel of the outlet; (see [0202], where Whitman discloses the scoring method, and includes “the score value may represent an individual store, a chain of stores, a brand of stores, a subset of stores in a chain, and the like.” This compares to location of outlet, class, and retail channel. Because Whitman’s disclosure describes systems and methods for determining compliance with an entity’s SOPs, this discloses compliance with predefined acceptable levels. In addition, Whitman details the system includes a plurality of stores, distributed across a plurality of retail locations. Further disclosing elements within the instant claims).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Whitman and Adato discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above. Whitman further discloses: wherein assessing the performance further comprises: performing one or more actions based on the compliance assessment score of each of the plurality of outlets, wherein the one or more actions comprises: providing real-time alerts to at least one of a manufacturer of each of the product, a distributor of each of the product and merchants of each of the plurality of outlets, providing feedback via a merchant device to the merchants of each of the plurality of outlets, upgrading or downgrading a class of one or more outlets of the plurality of outlets, modifying a supply of one or more of each of the product to one or more of each of the plurality of outlets, and determining one or more outlets of the plurality of outlets as ineligible outlets; (first, see [0202] where a score may represent an individual store, and [0203] where the score is presented as dashboard, and recommendations of actions are displayed. See also Fig. 63).
Regarding claims 19 and 25, the combination of Whitman and Adato discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 7, above. Whitman further discloses: wherein the one or more compliance conditions are associated with at least one of: a threshold temperature range, a threshold humidity range, predefined location ranges of each of the product stored in the product storage area, the predefined planogram, predefined brand visibility conditions and predefined brand contamination conditions; (see [0126] disclosing monitoring data includes temperature and humidity thresholds).
Regarding claims 20 and 26, the combination of Whitman and Adato discloses all the limitations of claims 3 and 25, above. Whitman further discloses: wherein the monitored data comprises captured images of each of the product received from the image capturing unit; (see [0127 and Figures 17 and 18 disclosing an image capturing device).
Regarding claims 21 and 27, the combination of Whitman and Adato discloses all the limitations of claims 20 and 26, above.
Not disclosed by Whitman is: wherein determining the planogram compliance comprises comparing the captured images with the predefined planogram associated with each of the product.
However, Adato discloses a method for planogram compliance in retail stores and teaches identifying products and monitoring planogram compliance using analysis of image data, at [0006]. Further, see [0247] suggesting the comparison between a planogram and one or more images. For example, a computing device may analyze the one or more images to determine an actual placement of products on the store shelf).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare planograms with images, per the method of Adato, within Whitman’s method for determining compliance, because this provides a benefit, such as a technological method to provide a dynamic solution that will automatically monitor retail spaces. See Adato [0003].
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Whitman and Adato discloses all the limitations of claim 20, above.
Not disclosed by Whitman is: wherein the method further comprises: determining brand visibility based on the captured images and the predefined brand visibility conditions; and determining the ambience score based on the corresponding monitored data, the determined planogram compliance, the determined brand visibility, and one or more compliance conditions pre-set for each of the plurality of predefined parameters of the corresponding product category.
However, Adato discloses a method for planogram compliance in retail stores and teaches in-store execution by providing adequate visibility to ensure that the right products are located at preferred locations on the shelf. See [0229] and Figures 11C-11D. Adato then further adds this data into the scoring method disclosed at [0230].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to score stores per a visibility compliance score and other parameter monitoring methods, per the method of Adato, within Whitman’s method for determining compliance, because this provides a desired result of removing human workers from having to visit the stores, as well as offering techniques that are more efficient and aligned. See Adato’s background at [0003].
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Whitman and Adato discloses all the limitations of claim 20, above.
Not disclosed by Whitman is: determining brand contamination based on the captured images and the predefined brand contamination conditions; and determining the ambience score based on the corresponding monitored data, the determined planogram compliance, the determined brand contamination, and one or more compliance conditions pre-set for each of the plurality of predefined parameters of the corresponding product category.
However, Adato discloses a method for planogram compliance in retail stores and teaches image processing to determine compliance with planograms by image matching for proper brand locations on shelves, see [0192 and 0207]. See also [0363, 0402, and 0425] discussing improper locations among disparate brands.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to score per brand contamination, per the method of Adato, within Whitman’s method for determining compliance, because this provides the intended result of making sure a specific product (brand – Coca-Cola® as opposed to Pepsi®, in Adato), is stored or displayed in a specific location. While defined as contamination within the instant application, Adato accomplishes the same result of having a competitor brand identified as being in the competition’s storage location
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Whitman and Adato discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above. Whitman further discloses: wherein determining the planogram compliance is based on a trained artificial intelligence (AI) model; (see [0224] disclosing an artificial intelligence circuit to evaluate products based on images.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first discusses rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. See page 8. Applicant contends that the amened claims are distinguishable over cited prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. In view of the amendments to the claims, and upon further search, the Examiner has included a new rejection for all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 within this Office Action. Prior cited art (Whitman) discloses a system and method for determining compliance to standards in order to provide retailers with insight and data regarding how foods or goods are being handled and their environment throughout their life cycle, thus disclosing a method for receiving monitored data related to a plurality of predefined parameters corresponding to each product stored in each of a plurality of outlets. Newly cited art (Adato) discloses compliance with planograms within a store based on image analysis. Thereby, teaching to Applicant’s amened recitations to determining planogram compliance. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant next argues rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 10. Applicant argues the amended claims do not recite any abstract idea and are integrated into a practical application. Page 10. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant points to amendments to the claims that positively recite that monitored data is received from one or more sensor clusters, and the use of these physical devices cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind. See page 11. This argument is not persuasive. As detailed above, the Examiner concludes that the amended claims set forth a method for evaluating the performance of retail outlets with regards to compliance with required specific conditions and a planogram. This evaluation method requires observing certain data (monitored data as well as image comparison to the planogram), and then making a judgment (determining scores) as to the performance of the outlet. Observations, evaluations, and judgments are concepts that recite a mental processes and are an abstract idea.
The Examiner adds that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. The instant amended claims recite receiving data, comparing images to a planogram (an image itself), making a determination, and assessing performance. These are all steps that the human mind has can perform when performing traditional merchandising. Applicant discloses that “[o]ne of the traditional techniques used is to hire third party auditors or empower the distributor sales representative to conduct in-store audits.” Specification [0004].
Further to Applicant’s use of these sensor clusters; these elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in the disclosure, at Specification [0034 – 0035 and 0048 – 0049] and Figures 1B and 2 as filed. Applicants argument that these claims do not recite a mental process is not persuasive.
Applicant next argues the amended claims contain significantly more than the alleged abstract concept. Page 11. Applicant states the combination of environmental monitoring sensors and analysis capabilities represents This argument is not persuasive. At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea on a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (one or more sensor clusters; a processor; memory; non-transitory computer readable medium including instruction stored thereon), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Adato discloses dynamic planograms in a retail store. Jones teaches shelf systems and associated methods.
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 DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629