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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-23 are pending in the instant application. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 3, 10, and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19 have been amended. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made final.
Response to Remarks
35 USC 102
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered by the examiner, but are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
35 USC 101
USC 101
The examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments
regarding the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101, but does not find said arguments and amendments to be persuasive. The claims must qualify as patent eligible subject matter. i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) (citing Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013). See MPEP § 2106.04 for detailed information on the judicial exceptions. Because abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon "are the basic tools of scientific and technological work", the Supreme Court has expressed concern that monopolizing these tools by granting patent rights may impede innovation rather than promote it. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980; Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012). However, the Court has also emphasized that an invention is not considered to be ineligible for patenting simply because it involves a judicial exception. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1980-81 (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 209 USPQ 1, 8 (1981)). See also Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d. 1343, 1349, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("That a mathematical equation is required to complete the claimed method and system does not doom the claims to abstraction."). Accordingly, the Court has said that integration of an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into a practical application may be eligible for patent protection. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (explaining that "in applying the §101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more" (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 89, 110 USPQ2d at 1971) and stating that Mayo "set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts"); Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d at 1969, 1971. The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself, or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test, is discussed in further detail in subsection III, below. The first part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). Id. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). The Supreme Court has described the second part of the test as the "search for an 'inventive concept'". Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). The examiner submits that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be established and considered in the determination of patent eligibility under 35 USC 101.
In considering the pending claims, the examiner submits the following: in considering the claims, the examiner has taken into consideration the state of the art at the time of filing, consistent with Applicant’s specification, as originally filed. Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with Applicant’s specification, claim 1 recites a store management system for identification of items on a shelf. The examiner further submits that the language of the system as recited in independent claims 8 and 15, respectively, recite language that is similar to that recited in the method of claim 1, so that the 101 analysis as applied to claim 1 similarly applies to claims 8 and 15 at least based on their resemblance to claim 1. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, it is clear that the pending claim 1 and similarly recited independent claims 8 and 15 fall into the judicial exception category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes 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) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The aforementioned categorization is evidenced at least in the steps of: “for each of the items transmit the item information…to the shelf label server” (claim 1 of the pending application) which constitutes a commercial interaction, and therefore places the pending claim into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. The claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.04(d). The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982.
The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012). The Federal Circuit has distinguished between claims that are ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception (which require further analysis to determine their eligibility) and those that are not (which are therefore patent eligible), e.g., claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972), MPEP 2106.06(b) (summarizing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and other cases that were eligible as improvements to technology or computer functionality instead of being directed to abstract ideas). Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h).
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h).
A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception.
The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill 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. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").
The examiner notes that the disclosure as originally filed does not disclose any specialized hardware or computing device, but a plurality of generic hardware components, all of which were well known and understood within the art at the time of filing. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Applicant’s specification fails to identify or explicitly disclose any improvement in the function of a computer or any other technology or technological field, as evidenced by the aforementioned citations from Applicant’s specification. Applicant’s specification merely combines generic, well understood computing elements in the performance of the well understood, routine, and conventional steps (see at least the language of claim 1 and similarly recited independent claims 8 and 15). Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 12-14, 16, and 18-23 fail to cure the deficiencies under 35 USC 101 of the claims from which they depend, and are similarly rejected for the same reasoning as applied to independent claim 1, and similarly recited claims 8 and 15.
For the aforementioned reasoning, the claims are found to be ineligible, and the rejection of the pending claims in view of 35 USC 101 is hereby maintained and made final.
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, 2, 4-9, 12-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claim(s) 1-20 are directed to a store management system and method, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2A (prongs 1 and 2) - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 8 recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
Limitation 1 – storing item location information;
Limitation 2 – searching for item information for each of the items;
Limitation 3 – transmitting item information retrieved from the database; and
Limitation 4 – transmitting item information received from the store server.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that “the key question is ‘whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp., No. 2016-2254 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2017) (referring to Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. et al., Appeal No. 2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “In this regard, [examiners] must articulate with specificity what the claims are directed to.” Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S., 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held that “[a]dding one abstract idea . . . to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 885 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Importantly, “[w]e [] assume that the techniques claimed are ‘[g]oundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,’ but that is not enough for eligibility.” SAP Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018) citing Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 *2013).
Furthermore, “[t]he ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981). “The fact that an identifier [or utilization of the underlying abstract idea] can be used to make a process more efficient . . . does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.” Secured Mail Solutions, LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1728 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2017). Importantly, the CAFC “ha[s] held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general purpose computer ‘do[] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.’” Intellectual Ventures I v. Erie Indemnity, Appeal No. 2017-1147 (Fed. Cir. 2017) citing Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, “some improvements in computer-related technology when appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as chip architecture, an LED display, and the like.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1355.
Here, the examiner finds the claims are not directed to “an improvement to computer technology," such as found in Enfish, but to the abstract idea itself.1 Examiners have been instructed to refer to the body of case law precedent in order to identify abstract ideas by way of comparison to concepts already found to be abstract. Accordingly, the examiner refers to the following cases (and their associated judicial descriptor(s)) that relate to concepts similar to the claimed concepts:
Versata2(precedential—ineligible) – abstract idea found to be using organizational and product group hierarchies to determine a price, where this was found to be a method of organizing human activity;
Downing3 (non-precedential—ineligible) – abstract idea found to be the concept of personal management, resource planning, and forecasting including a “resource planning forecast product” that collects and analyzes “non-business or business information relative to the end user,” where this was found to be a method of organizing human activity; and
SAP Inc. v. InvestPic4 (precedential—ineligible) – abstract idea found to be selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis, where this was found to be a certain method of organizing human activity.
As indicated above, the claims are directed to similar concepts.5 Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to abstract idea. Similar to the case law cited above, the examiner finds the abstract idea to include at least the judicial descriptor(s) of: certain methods of organizing human activity.6
Regarding preemption, the examiner notes that “[w]hile preemption may signal ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this [application], preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Id.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
“[A]fter determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, ‘we then ask, [w]hat else is there in the claims before us?’” MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis in MPEP) citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78. “What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP Inc. v. InvestPic, LLV, Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For step two, the examiner must “determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe [the] abstract method” and thus transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
A primary consideration when determining whether a claim recites “significantly more” than abstract idea is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). “If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.” Id.
The Federal Circuit has held that “[w]hether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination.” Bahr, Robert (April 19, 2018). Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) citing Berkheimer at 1369. “As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. This memo[] clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in section III [of the memo].” Berkheimer Memo at 3 (emphasis in memo).
Generally, “[i]f a patent uses generic computer components to implement an invention, it fails to recite an inventive concept under Alice step two.” West View Research v. Audi, CAFC Appeal Nos. 2016-1947-51 (Fed. Cir. 04/19/2017) citing Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that “generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database’ . . . do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement”; but see Bascom (finding that an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the generic computer components, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user).
In accordance with the above guidance, the examiner has searched the claim(s) to determine whether there are any “additional elements” in the claims that constitute “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Those “additional features” must be more than “well understood, routine, conventional activity.” See Alice. To note, “under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered . . . abstract idea[] cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility.” Genetic Techs. Ltd v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981).
As an example, the Federal Circuit has indicated that “inventive concept” can be found where the claims indicate the technological steps that are undertaken to overcome the stated problem(s) identified in Applicant’s originally-filed Specification. See Trading Techs. Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017); but see IV v. Erie Indemnity, No. 2016-1128 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017)(“The claims are not focused on how usage of the XML tags alters the database in a way that leads to an improvement in technology of computer databases, as in Enfish.”)(emphasis in original) and IV. v. Capital One, Nos. 2016-1077 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017)(“Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cautioning against claims ‘so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem.’)”). Furthermore, “[a]bstraction is avoided or overcome when a proposed new application or computer-implemented function is not simply the generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known or obvious process, but instead is an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added).
In the search for inventive concept, the Berkheimer Memo describes “an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in the MPEP as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
See Berkheimer Memo at 3-4.
Accordingly, the examiner refers to the following generically-recited computer elements with their associated functions (and associated factual finding(s)), which are considered, individually and in combination, to be routine, conventional, and well-understood:
Additional Element 1 – shelf label server;
Additional Element 2 – store server
In sum, the examiner finds that the claims "are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two.” In re TLI Communications LLC, No. 2015-1372 (May 17, 2016). Similar to the claims in SAP v. InvestPic, “[t]he claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter.” Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In other words, “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.” Id. Accordingly, when considered individually and in ordered combination, the examiner finds the claims to be directed to in-eligible subject matter. Claims 2-7 suffer from similar deficiencies as the claim from which they depend, and therefore fails to remedy the deficiency of the independent claims they depend therefrom.
In addition, the examiner has fully considered each of similarly recited independent claims 8 and 15, and the dependent claims that depend therefrom. Unless otherwise noted below, the dependent claims are directed to the identified abstract idea above. Similar to the independent claim(s) above, the examiner refers to generically-recited computer elements with their associated functions (and associated factual finding(s)), which are considered, individually and in combination, to be routine, conventional, and well-understood, and therefore fails to remedy the deficiency of the independent claims they depend therefrom.
For the reasons stated, the examiner does not find the claims to recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (US 2011/0218844) in view of Hosokawa (US 2008/0052198).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a store management system, comprising: a plurality of electronic shelf labels each configured to display item information indicating one of a plurality of items sold in a store (see at least paragraph [0025] to Sugimoto); a shelf label server configured to communicate with the electronic shelf labels and store the item information displayed by each of the electronic shelf labels in association with a corresponding shelf label location information indicating a location of said each of the electronic shelf labels in the store (see at least paragraph [0035] to Sugimoto); and a store server configured to: store, in a memory, item location information (see at least paragraph [0023] to Sugimoto) search the database, item information for each of the items using the item code of said each of the items, and for each of the items(see at least paragraph [0025] to Sugimoto), transmit the item information retrieved from the database along with the corresponding item location information stored in the memory to the shelf label server (see at least paragraph [0028] to Sugimoto), wherein the shelf label server is configured to transmit each item information received from the store server to a selected electronic shelf label for display by the selected electronic shelf label(see at least paragraph [0051] to Sugimoto), wherein the selected electronic shelf label is one of the electronic shelf labels that is located at or nearest to the location indicated by the item location information received with the item information (see at least paragraph [0039] to Sugimoto).
Sugimoto does not appear to explicitly disclose having a database that stores item information for each of the items sold in the store and configured to operate in a first mode for a shelf inspection operation in response to an instruction from a mobile terminal, wherein the store server is configured to, in the first mode: upon receipt of an item code of each of the items sold in the store and item location information that indicates a location of said each of the items in the store from the mobile terminal, store, in a memory, the item code in association with the item location information.
However, Hosokawa discloses electronic shelf labels, and an electronic shelf label system and method, having a database that stores item information for each of the items sold in the store and configured to operate in a first mode for a shelf inspection operation in response to an instruction from a mobile terminal, wherein the store server is configured to, in the first mode: upon receipt of an item code of each of the items sold in the store and item location information that indicates a location of said each of the items in the store from the mobile terminal, store, in a memory, the item code in association with the item location information (see at least paragraphs [0065] and [0066] to Hosokawa).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the electronic shelf system and method, as disclosed by Sugimoto and the electronic shelf label system and method as taught by Hosokawa, in order to automatically update shelf information could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the store management system according to claim 1, wherein the store server is configured to transmit the item code and the item location information for each of the items to an external server that is different from the shelf label server(see at least paragraph [0033] to Sugimoto).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the store management system according to claim 3, wherein the mobile terminal is configured to receive an input of a sales floor, a number of a shelf, and a tier number and a section number of the shelf as the item location information (see at least paragraph [0035] to Sugimoto).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the store management system according to claim 3, further comprising: a point of sale (POS) terminal installed in the store, and configured to receive an input of the item information for each of the items and store the input item information in the database (see at least paragraph [0026] to Sugimoto).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the store management system according to claim 5, wherein the item information for each of the items indicates an item code, a name, a price, and promotional information of said each of the items (see at least paragraph [0025] to Sugimoto).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the store management system according to claim 5, further comprising: a first network in which the store server and the POS terminal are connected to each other; and a second network in which the shelf label server and the electronic shelf labels are connected to each other, wherein the first and second networks are connected by a third network (see at least paragraph [0024] to Sugimoto).
Regarding claim 21, the prior art discloses the store management system according to claim 1, wherein the store server is configured to operate in a second mode for a maintenance operation in response to an instruction from the mobile terminal, and the store server is configured to, in the second mode: update item information stored in the database and corresponding to an item identified by the mobile terminal, search the memory for item location information associated with an item code of the identified item, and transmit the updated item information along with the corresponding item location information to the shelf label server (see at least paragraph [0056] to Hosokawa, wherein The JAN code converting unit 201a performs a processing of converting received commercial-item IC-tag information into a JAN code, by referring to a RF-JAN master 202b.sub.1. The shelf position-JAN code associating unit 201b performs a processing of associating the shelf position information received together with commercial-item IC-tag information with the JAN code converted by the JAN code converting unit 201a. To "associate" means to bring something into correspondence with something else. As a result of this processing, information that indicates "a commercial item with what JAN code is placed at which shelf position" is generated. The shelf position-JAN master updating unit 201c performs a processing of reflecting the information generated by the shelf position-JAN code associating unit 201b into the shelf position-JAN master).
Claims 8, 9, 11-16,18-20, 22, and 23 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on July 17, 2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM 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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
1 See Electric Power Group, LLC. V. Alstom, case no. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. August 1, 2016) (“The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independent abstract ideas that use computers as tools.”).
2 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(The court also stated that “[u]sing organizational and product group hierarchies to determine a price is an abstract idea that has no particular concrete or tangible form or application. It is a building block, a basic conceptual framework for organizing information.”).
3 Appeal No 2018-1795 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
4 Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 “[The examiner] need not define the outer limits of ‘abstract idea,’ or at this stage exclude the possibility that any particular inventive means are to be found somewhere in the claims, to conclude that these claims focus on an abstract idea—and hence require stage two analysis under § 101.” Electric Power Group, LLC. V. Alstom, case no. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. August 1, 2016).
6 As stated in the July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, “These associations define the judicial descriptors in a manner that stays within the confines of the judicial precedent, with the understanding that these associations are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some concepts may be associated with more than one judicial descriptor.”