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 .
Priority
Applicant has not claimed priority to another application. Application 18/496,679 was filed 10/27/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been submitted.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 4/6/2026, have been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-8, are directed to a process the system, as claimed in claims 9-16, are directed to a machine, and the non-transitory computer readable medium, as claimed in claims 17-20, are directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
receiving environment data associated with a retailer's premises, wherein the environment data comprises measurements captured within the retailer’s premises;
inferring, based on the received environment data, current conditions at the retailer's premises, wherein inferring current conditions comprises:
identifying, based on the environment data, a subset of the environment data that indicate a current condition within the retailer’s premises, wherein the subset of the environment data comprises a subset of the measurements; and
responsive to the computed number of measurements exceeding a threshold value, updating a premises condition repository to include the current condition;
for a basket of items associated with a user, generating a plurality of candidate routes through the retailer's premises passing by each of at least a plurality of the items in the basket;
estimating, for each of the plurality of candidate routes using one or more picking time modules and the inferred current conditions at the retailer's premises, a route time to obtain items of the basket;
selecting one of the plurality of candidate routes having a lowest estimated route time;
display information about the selected candidate route;
after the selecting of one of the plurality of candidate routes, receiving additional environment data associated with the retailer's premises from another user;
selecting a second candidate route having a least estimated route time according at least in part to the additional environment data; and
display information about the second selected candidate route.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because selecting a route having a least estimated route time through a retailer's premises passing by each of at least a plurality of items associated with a user is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations.
Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 9 and 17 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 9 and 17 as described above for independent claim 1.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A method performed by a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium, the method comprising:
receiving environment data associated with a retailer's premises, wherein the environment data comprises measurements captured by a plurality of sensors within the retailer’s premises;
inferring, based on the received environment data, current conditions at the retailer's premises, wherein inferring current conditions comprises:
identifying, based on the environment data, a subset of the environment data that indicate a current condition within the retailer’s premises, wherein the subset of the environment data comprises a subset of the measurements; and
responsive to the computed number of measurements exceeding a threshold value, updating a premises condition repository to include the current condition;
for a basket of items associated with a user, generating a plurality of candidate routes through the retailer's premises passing by each of at least a plurality of the items in the basket;
estimating, for each of the plurality of candidate routes using one or more picking time modules and the inferred current conditions at the retailer's premises, a route time to obtain items of the basket;
selecting one of the plurality of candidate routes having a lowest estimated route time;
causing a user interface of a client device of the user associated with the basket to display information about the selected candidate route;
after the selecting of one of the plurality of candidate routes, receiving additional environment data associated with the retailer's premises from another user;
selecting a second candidate route having a least estimated route time according at least in part to the additional environment data; and
causing the user interface to display information about the second selected candidate route.
Claims 9 includes the additional elements of claim 1 in addition to (additional elements are bolded):
A computer system comprising:
a computer processor; and
a computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by the computer processor perform actions comprising:
Claims 17 includes the additional elements of claim 1 in addition to (additional elements are bolded):
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a computer processor perform actions comprising:
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“performed by a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium”, “a computer system”, “a plurality of sensors”, “causing a user interface of a client device…to display”, “a computer processor”, “a computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by the computer processor perform actions”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a computer processor perform actions”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving information, displaying information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 17 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Fig. 1; paragraphs [0012], [0014], [0017], [0025], [0077]-[0079]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any 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. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, 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 elements 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 transform 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 technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving and displaying steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 9, and 17 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claims 1, 9, and 17, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 17 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 17 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 17 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1, 9, and 17 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19
Dependent claim(s) 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1, 9, and 17.
Claims 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19 set forth:
wherein receiving the environment data comprises receiving location data representing a location of the user.
wherein the picking time modules: take, as input, a current location of the user and a location of an item in the basket, and output an estimated time to obtain the item.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of selecting a route having a least estimated route time through a retailer's premises passing by each of at least a plurality of items associated with a user. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1, 9, and 17.
Thus, dependent 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, and 20
Dependent claim(s) 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, and 20 sets forth:
wherein the environment data is obtained from a plurality of different devices of a plurality of different users.
wherein receiving the environment data comprises receiving camera data obtained from a camera of at least one of: the client device of the user, or a smart cart used by the user on the retailer's premises.
wherein receiving the environment data comprises receiving user comments data specified by the user within an application on the client device.
wherein receiving the user comments data comprises receiving comments indicating a location of an obstruction within the retailer's premises, or an alternate location of an item within the retailer's premises.
wherein machine-learned models used by the picking time modules are retrained responsive to obtaining additional data regarding how long it took the user to obtain the items in the basket.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of selecting a route having a least estimated route time through a retailer's premises passing by each of at least a plurality of items associated with a user. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “a plurality of different devices”, “a camera of at least one of: the client device of the user, or a smart cart used by the user”, “an application on the client device”, “machine-learned models”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 1, 9, and 17, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0012], [0014], [0017], [0025], [0047]-[0051], [0055], [0077]-[0079] indicate that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any 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, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Further, the “devices”, “machine-learned model”, “smart cart”, “camera”, and “applications” are recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, and 20 are also ineligible.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference A of the Notice of References Cited Wright (US 12,561,731 B1) discloses a guidance system for providing a mapped path for a shopper in a store based on captured sensor data indicative of an amount of traffic in the store, congestion in particular areas, etc.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on page 13 of the Remarks filed 4/6/2026, with respect to the previous objections to the Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the Specification. Accordingly the previous objections to the Specification are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 13 of the Remarks filed 4/6/2026, with respect to the previous objections to the Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the Drawings. Accordingly the previous objections to the Drawings are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 13 of the Remarks filed 4/6/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. Accordingly the previous 35 USC §112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 13-14 of the Remarks filed 4/6/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended claims recites an improvement to the technical field of navigation and automated route generation within environments, such as retail premises, by using sensor-based data capture and processing to dynamically create a repository of current environmental conditions including collecting sensor measurements from within the environment to construct an up-to-date mode of the environment’s layout and traffic patterns, requiring a threshold number of sensor measurements before updating the repository, and insuring that the environmental model remains both accurate and stable to improve the reliability of any routing or navigation functions that rely on it. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the Examiner agrees that the amended limitations include sensor-based data capture and a computer system (i.e., processor, memory, computer readable instructions, a client device with a user interface) which do not fall within the abstract idea, the Examiner disagrees that these elements impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. As claimed, these elements represent the mere use of generic computing components to facility the abstract idea. Notably, the specification provides only a brief description of the plurality of sensors (see [0030], [0033], and [0043]) and generic computing hardware (see Fig. 1; paragraphs [0012], [0014], [0017], [0025], [0077]-[0079]).
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to either a plurality of sensors, machine learning, computing devices, interfaces, the technical implementation of navigation systems, and/or the technical implementation of automated route generation, and is specific only in the use of the generic additional elements in the use of facilitating the abstract idea of selecting a route having a least estimated route time through a retailer's premises passing by each of at least a plurality of items associated with a user. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is akin to ineligible decisions such as Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible), or, Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims contained no restriction on the manner in which the additional elements perform these claimed functions). The alleged improvement by Applicant is at best a bare assertion of an improvement sans sufficient detail to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the alleged improvement to the technical field.
There is no indication from either the claims or the specification that the invention seeks to modify conventional operation of any such technology. Here again, the Examiner emphasizes the failure of the disclosure to set forth or describe the amended features, or any improvements that are achieved from or made relative to another technology or technical field. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the improvements manifested by the claimed invention are improvements to the abstract idea itself, not the computer or another technology or technical field.
The character of the claims as a whole is not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit. The claims of the instant application, however, merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. The claims lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the myriad of ineligible court decisions that employed generic computer components at a high-level to achieve improvements in commercial processes.
In review of the claimed invention, and in consideration of the specification as originally filed, the Examiner asserts that:
(i) the claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process, and,
(ii) the specification, as originally filed, does not provide sufficient discloser or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and maintains the rejection Step 2A, Prong Two.
Accordingly, the 35 USC §101 rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 14-15 of the Remarks filed 4/6/2026, with respect to the 35 USC §103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. Accordingly, the previous 35 USC §103 rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights