Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 10-19 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 10, line 21 recites “the selected products in shorty supply on the sales floor.” See claim 10, lines 9-10, “selecting . . . products in short supply.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for this recitation due to “shorty supply.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 10-19 relate to process claims. Accordingly, step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Exemplary claim 10 recites the abstract idea of:
acquiring image data of a stock status of a product displayed on the sales floor (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B); MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C));
acquire on a basis of the imaging data acquired stock information indicating a stock status of each of the products on the sales floor (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-C) fundamental economic practice, managing personal behavior/relationships)
select, on a basis of the acquired stock information, products in short supply that need to be replenished to the sales floor (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) citing SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-C)),
setting, priority of replenishment to the sales floor for the selected product in short supply (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), (II)(C) managing personal behavior/relationships),
storing a stocking information management table in which a product in short supply that needs to be replenished to the sales floor and priority of replenishment to the sales floor of the product in short supply are stored in association with each other (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); and
acquiring, on a basis of the stock status of the product acquired by the acquisition device, stock information indicating the stock status of the product displayed on the sales floor (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B)),
set, where the product in short supply includes a plurality of products, priority of replenishment to the sales floor for the selected product in short supply (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) citing SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas)),
store product specification information and the set priority in the stocking information management table, the product specification information being for specifying the selected product in short supply (storing sets of data in column/table format is mental processes, pen/paper and/or human brain can perform, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); see MPEP 2106(II) With regard to the second criterion for eligibility, the Alice/Mayo test, claim interpretation can affect the first part of the test (whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception). For example, the patentee in Synopsys argued that the claimed methods of logic circuit design were intended to be used in conjunction with computer-based design tools, and were thus not mental processes. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1147-49, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1480-81 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The court disagreed, because it interpreted the claims as encompassing nothing other than pure mental steps (and thus falling within an abstract idea grouping) because the claims did not include any limitations requiring computer implementation. In contrast, the patentee in Enfish argued that its claimed self-referential table for a computer database was an improvement in an existing technology and thus not directed to an abstract idea. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336-37, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689-90 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The court agreed with the patentee, based on its interpretation of the claimed “means for configuring” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as requiring a four-step algorithm that achieved the improvements, as opposed to merely any form of storing tabular data. See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc. 837 F.3d 1299, 1314, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the claim’s construction incorporated rules of a particular type that improved an existing technological process) (emphasis added by the examiner to show that the Court in Enfish distinguished between the self-referential table that was eligible, and merely any form of storing tabular data; see also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015)),
output stocking information in which the product specification information for specifying the selected product in short supply and the set priority, which are stored in the stocking information management table, are associated with each other (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
displaying, on a basis of the stocking information, a stocking information notification screen that includes a floor map specifying locations of the selected products in shorty supply on the sales floor, the product specification information of the selected products, and the set priority, on a display of the clerk terminal device (see e.g. Electric Power Group, where displaying data was found to be mental processes).
When these abstract ideas are viewed alone and in ordered combination (as a whole), the examiner finds claim 1 (and 10) recites abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Claim 10 does not integrate the recited abstract idea with practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of, a camera that is mounted to shopping cart, a server, a clerk terminal device, outputting from the server to clerk device data. For the claimed camera that acquires data while attached to a shopping cart, the examiner refers to MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:
iv. Recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a cellular telephone, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747.
For the “a server” that performs some of the steps, the examiner does not find this to be an improvement to the underlying server technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f) mere instruction to apply an exception, “apply it” rationale. For the clerk terminal device, see the examiner does not find this to be an improvement to the underlying server technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f) mere instruction to apply an exception, “apply it” rationale. For the outputting data from the server to clerk device the examiner refers to MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering/outputting, iii. Presenting offers [outputting] to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. In other words, these additional limitations, when viewed alone and in ordered combination, are recited at a high level of generality and merely act as tools to implement the identified abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner finds that exemplary claim 10 does not integrate the abstract idea with practical application, and is therefore directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B – The analysis of the additional limitations from Step 2A, Prong 2 is equally applied to Step 2B.
Furthermore, see MPEP 2106.05(d), “[a]nother consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional [i.e. WURC] activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis.” For the WURC analysis, the examiner refers to MEPP 2106.05(d)(II)
“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
v. Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
Claim 10 includes limitations that relate to acquiring data via transmission/retrieval, storing data, outputting instructions that cause presenting/displaying data, all of which courts have found similar limitations to be WURC.
Accordingly, the examiner does not find significantly more, and maintains that claim 10 is directed to abstract idea.
Dependent claims – Claim 11 includes more abstract idea of setting a priority of replenishment. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-C). Claim 12 includes more abstract idea of calculating data and setting an order. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-C). Claim 13, 15 recites more of the environment of the floor space includes standard shelving (iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use,) and more abstract idea of setting a priority by shelf category etc.. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-C). Claim 14, 16 recites more abstract idea of calculating an amount and setting an order. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (II)(B). Claim 17 recites acquiring data with code scanner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) courts have found this to be WURC, - v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Solutran as shown in MPEP 2106.04(d)(III), In particular, the court determined that the claims “did not improve the technical capture of information from a check to create a digital file or the technical step of electronically crediting a bank account” nor did the claims “improve how a check is scanned.” Id. This analysis is equivalent to the Office’s analysis of determining that the exception is not integrated into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and thus that the claims are directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).), and registering the product code (abstract idea, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B)). Claim 18 recites more of the technological environment of the process, such as attaching the camera to a shopping cart at front end. Claim 19 recites more mapping, as is found to be abstract idea of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B-C).
Claim 2 recites more abstract idea of selecting data based on known data, and further recites additional limitations camera and the storage device and the examiner refers to e.g. MPEP 2106.05(f) “apply it” rationale where the claim is directed to abstract idea. Claim 3 recites more abstract idea of performing accounting (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B)) along with additional limitations of an accounting device and controller, see MPEP 2106.05(d) apply it rationale and extra-solution activity at MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 4 recites more abstract idea implemented by a tool in “apply it” rationale. Claim 5 recites more abstract idea of referring to a master document for specifying data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and (II)(B). Claim 6 recites more “apply it” with the controller. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 7-9 recites more abstract idea and where the controller implements the abstract idea in “apply it” rationale. See e.g. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0247264 to Taylor et al. (“Taylor”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0235465 to Walker et al. (“Walker”)
With regard to claims 1 and 10, Taylor discloses the claimed information processing apparatus, comprising:
acquiring, by a camera that is mounted on each of a plurality of shopping carts used by customers on a sales floor (see e.g. [0070] To detect products in each of these locations, different cameras or other optical detection systems can be used. In one embodiment, cameras can be mounted to shelves on one side of an aisle, facing the opposite side of the aisle to detect the placement of products on shelves and racks on the opposite side. In other embodiments, cameras can be mobile, such as by attachment to a drone or robot. Other mobile cameras can be operated by an associate, such as by using a camera on a handheld device, restocking cart, or other mobile device.) and directable to the sales floor (e.g. [0070] optical detection systems could be used to detect . . . shelves, racks, floor displays), imaging data of the sales floor (e.g. [0070]);
acquiring, by a server, on a basis of the imaging data acquired by the camera on each of the plurality of shopping carts, stock information indicating a stock status of each of products displayed on the sales floor (see e.g. [0071] In embodiments, visual data measured by such cameras measures accessibility of the products available in a retail environment by detecting the products and/or labels that are visible to a customer, which can be different from mere product quantities available. As described above, accessibility can include not just whether the product is present in the store. Rather, accessibility of the product includes a determination of whether the product is in the correct location, coupled with an accurate label, positioned in a way that labels or other important information is readily apparent, and arranged at the front of a shelf or rack rather than in an obscured or obstructed location.);
selecting, by the server, on a basis of the acquired stock information, products in short supply that need to be replenished to the sales floor (e.g. [0047]);
setting, by the server, priority of replenishment to the sales floor for the selected products in short supply (see [0007] a rules engine module configured to carry out a set of inventory audit rules, at least one of the set of inventory audit rules comprising a prioritization definition based on at least one of the product perpetual inventory data, the realtime OSCA, the product position, and the product orientation, and an instance of the inventory audit API configured to build the plurality of different dynamic audit task lists based on the set of inventory audit rules and the OSCA of a product, product position, and product orientation obtained from the optical detection subsystem and the weight detection subsystem; [0028] server 104; [0036] one of the inventory audit rules 112 is a prioritization definition based on a real time on-shelf customer availability (OSCA) of a particular product; [0040]; [0045]; [0069]; [0079]);
storing, by the server, product specification information and the set priority1, the product specification information being for specifying the selected products in short supply (see e.g. [0028] where the tasks are organized in a task list (e.g. stored by the server), organized according to the priority found for that region of the store, item, items, etc.);
outputting, from the server to a clerk terminal device, stocking information in which the product specification information for specifying the selected products in short supply and the set priority, (see e.g. [0028] For example, server 104 may direct the first available mobile electronic device (e.g., mobile electronic device 106a) to a section of the store that has the highest priority need for an inventory check. The next available mobile electronic device 106b can be allocated to the same section as the first mobile electronic device 106a, or alternatively rules engine 102 may direct the second mobile electronic device 106b be deployed by server 104 to the region having the second-highest priority need for an inventory check. In general, rules engine 102 will direct each device 106 (i.e., a user of each device 106) based on specific tasks to perform, organized in a task list and discussed in more detail below; [0035] shows that the task lists includes such specification and priority associated with each other); and
displaying (see [0058] for display screen, “When operating on certain devices, the GUI is touchscreen-compatible, such that associates need only tap, swipe, pinch and/or use other known touchscreen gestures in order to interact with the system.”), on a basis of the stocking information, a stocking information notification screen that includes a floor map specifying locations of the selected products in short[[y]] supply on the sales floor (see e.g. [0053] In some embodiments, the devices can be equipped with geolocation and mapping functions that enable tasks to be viewed graphically or spatially (i.e., on a map or illustration of the retail store presented on the GUI) or paths between tasks to be illustrated and updated in real time as the associate moves around in the store.), the product specification information of the selected products, and the set priority, on a display of the clerk terminal device (see e.g. [0053] where the product/task is shown, and then the illustrated path between tasks shows the priority of each task in relation to the other tasks, and it shows the actual set priority).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Taylor discloses the above limitations, it is unclear in Taylor if the product information and the priority information are stored together in a “table” as claimed. Upon consideration, the examiner finds that this is a common concept in the inventory management art. For instance, Walker teaches at e.g. Fig. 9 (to the right), [0010] [0161] [0166] [0193-198] [0202] that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art to include a table with a prioritized ranking attached/associated with each item in the table, where at e.g. [0166] it is clear that this is a refilling operation as the score takes into account the previous fill period results of that product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Taylor to include such a table with ranking data of each item in a prioritized order, as shown in Walker, where this is beneficial in that this data can be used to calculate an expected profitability of the items that are going to be restocked, and therefore an expected profit for a given period with the given items at the given quantities can help forecast consumer activity and maximize sales for the business. See e.g. Walker at [0167].
With regard to claim 11, Taylor further discloses where said setting the priority of replenishment comprises setting an order of replenishment by product (see e.g. [0047]).
With regard to claim 12, 14, Taylor does not disclose the limitations of claim 12. However, Walker teaches at e.g. [0079] [0085] [0145] [0084-85] that the priority score or ranking can be set on a degree of opportunity loss (or profitability attribute for each item) for each product, where this is beneficial in that the selections can be made to maximize profitability, or at the very least this information is presented to the user so that a decision can be made based on the score that includes the opportunity to gain and/or loss when compared to the opportunity cost of each product. See Walker, portions cited above.
With regard to claim 13, Taylor further discloses where the sales floor includes a plurality of product shelves, and at least one of the product shelves includes a plurality of display regions for a plurality of products, and said setting the priority of replenishment comprises setting an order of replenishment by product shelf (see e.g. [0047] and other portions cited above).
With regard to claim 15, Taylor further discloses the sales floor includes a plurality of product shelves for a plurality of product categories, and said setting the priority of replenishment comprises setting an order of replenishment by product category (see e.g. [0029-30] [0045]).
With regard to claim 16, Taylor further discloses where said setting the priority of replenishment comprises: calculating an amount of opportunity loss with respect to each product category; and setting the order of replenishment in a decremental order of the calculated amount of opportunity loss. For the product categories determination see Taylor at e.g. [0029-30] [0045]; for the opportunity loss determination see Walker teaches at e.g. [0079] [0085] [0145] [0084-85] that the priority score or ranking can be set on a degree of opportunity loss (or profitability attribute for each item) for each product, where this is beneficial in that the selections can be made to maximize profitability, or at the very least this information is presented to the user so that a decision can be made based on the score that includes the opportunity to gain and/or loss when compared to the opportunity cost of each product. See Walker, portions cited above.
With regard to claim 17, Taylor further discloses acquiring, by a code scanner that is mounted on one of the plurality of shopping carts separately from the camara mounted thereon, a product code of a product; registering the acquired product code for a transaction (see e.g. [0027, 29, 39)). Taylor does not teach where the scanner is also attached to the cart. However, as shown in Taylor at [0070] cameras and other optical system can be attached to the cart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the cart art to attach various optical system to the cart such as a camera and a scanner, before the effective filing date, as this allows the cart to hold the weight and placement of the various systems, as desired by the designer/user.
With regard to claim 18, Taylor further disclose on each of the plurality of shopping carts used by customers, the camera is mounted on a front end of a basket of the shopping cart (Taylor at [0070] cameras and other optical system can be attached to the cart). Taylor does not show exactly that the camera is mounted on front end of basket. However, Taylor indicates that the camera/scanner can be mounted to the cart, and the examiner finds it to be a design choice as to where the camera is exactly mounted on the standard shopping cart, and orientation.
With regard to claim 19, Taylor further discloses where the floor map selectively indicates the selected products in short supply without indicating products in none-short supply (see e.g. [0053] where the paths between tasks only indicates that path and task, which could be a short supply item to be dealt with).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has cancelled the previous claims, and re-written the claim 10, and has included new dependent claims. The examiner has amended the rejections above to be in line with the current claim set. The examiner refers to the rejections above as they have been amended to address the amendments and arguments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
1 The crossed-out recitation(s) are addressed by secondary reference(s), below.