DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/22/2026 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 5, 12, 19-21 and 24-54 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 22-23 and 55-56 are pending.
Claims 9-11, 13-18, 22-23 and 55-56 are withdrawn (as established previously).
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 stand rejected.
Claim Objection – Minor Informality
Claim 1 is objected to for the following informalities: Claim 1 was amended as “a mapped point ” in line 27 but recites “the mapped point location” in line 32, omitting the strikethrough of “location”. Line 32 should simply read “the mapped point” for proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On page 7 Applicant alleges that the claimed invention solves a “technical” problem of “in-store navigation”. Though in-store navigation often involves or uses computerized components (e.g., GPS, beacons, etc. ), on its own its is not inherently a technical field and claims that relate to navigation must be considered on their own merits. As written, the claimed invention does not address a technical problem, such as by improving the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field. Instead, the claimed invention leverages generic computing components to improve the abstract idea of determining a most efficient or fastest route for a shopping list and successively guiding the user along the route. This is further elucidated in the following response to Applicant’s arguments.
Turning to Prong One, the Examiner maintains that the claimed invention clearly recites an abstract idea. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. As discussed in the previous rejection as well as the rejection below, at least a certain portion of the claimed invention does set forth or describe “mental processes”. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the Examiner has not expanded the scope of this category.
The elements on which Applicant relies for this assertion are additional elements, and the Examiner has not included them in the analysis under Prong One because they are analyzed under Prong Two. The limitations emphasized on page 8-9 below can be performed in the human mind or using a physical aid such as pen and paper, and represent observations, evaluations or judgments. The presence of additional elements does not negate the finding under Prong One.
Moreover, regardless of whether a mental process is recited, the claims clearly recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, such as following rules or instructions, or alternatively, a commercial interaction (e.g., assisting a user during shopping by successively guiding a user along a route). Under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding under Prong One is maintained.
Turning to Prong Two, the Examiner again disagrees. Concerning point (1), the direct connection between the processor and the store’s SKU system is not performed in any particular manner and does not move beyond generic communication between devices for the purposes of receiving or transmitting data. Further, merely using data “exclusively” from the SKU system only refines the data set to be analyzed as part of the abstract idea. This offers no further technical functioning.
Regarding (2), retrieving location/availability data does not improve a technical field, but improves the abstract process for shopping route generation itself. Merely retrieving data for use in the route generation is not tantamount to improving the underlying technology of navigational systems.
Lastly, concerning (3), mapping product locations to a store layout map using mapped points and determining the fastest route forms part of the abstract idea itself, and does not pertain to any of the underlying functionality of the computing components.
Contrary to each of these assertions and Applicant’s overriding argument that there is a “technical improvement”, the Examiner finds that the claims do nothing more than leverage generic computing components in their routine and ordinary capacity and as an obvious mechanism to achieved the claimed result.
On page 10, Applicant notes that “Applicant does not represent or claim to have improved GPS”. The Examiner does agree, and also agrees with Applicant that the claims are to be evaluated “as a whole”. The Examiner simply disagrees that, even considered as a whole, the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or otherwise provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to “directly connecting to the identified store’s SKU system”, the Examiner reiterates the direct connection between the processor and the store’s SKU system is not performed in any particular manner and does not move beyond generic communication between devices for the purposes of receiving or transmitting data (or, retrieving data from storage).
With respect to the “aisle priority matrix”, the Examiner maintains that this forms part of the abstract idea. Even granting that it is a “particular solution”, it is only a particular solution to an abstract-idea based problem, not a technical problem. Even new abstract ideas can be ineligible, and lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that claims are eligible.
Regarding Step 2B, the Examiner maintains that the rationale applied under Prong Two is further applicable herein. Considering the elements emphasized by Applicant, individually or as a whole, the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. With respect to claim 4, the Examiner notes that the limitations emphasized form part of the abstract idea itself, rather than additional elements for further consideration under Prong Two or Step 2B.
Lastly, the Examiner acknowledges the August 4, 2025 Memo concerning “close calls”; however, in view of all of the evidence at hand the Examiner disagrees that the invention as claimed approaches a “close call”. The Examiner has, however, identified subject matter that may assist in conferring eligibility below.
Potential Subject Matter for Eligibility
The Examiner draws Applicant’s attention to paragraphs 0013, 0103-0105 and Fig. 24, which discuss drone assisted guidance through a drone paired to a user device and projecting a light indication onto products. Inclusion of such subject matter in the claims would likely result in favorable action, dependent on proper claiming.
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 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-8, under Step 2A claims 1-4 and 6-8 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a system for generating a most efficient route for a user to traverse a store to purchase products on a shopping list,
determine an identity of a store at which the user is located,
associate each product on the shopping list with a SKU number;
generate, from the accessed SKU database and from the shopping list, an aisle priority matrix that categorizes each product on the shopping list according to the SKU number and the aisle name and groups products located in a same aisle name sequentially within the aisle priority matrix;
using the aisle priority matrix, organizing and grouping items on the shopping list by aisle name;
generate, from the aisle priority matrix and from a store layout map of the identified store, a most efficient or a fastest route for the user to traverse the store to buy products on the shopping list, the route beginning at an entrance location on the store layout map and terminating at a checkout location on the store layout map, each product location in the SKU database corresponding to a mapped point on the store layout map, each mapped point designating a specific product location, wherein generating the most efficient or fastest route comprises determining a fastest route between the mapped points based on product location information exclusively retrieved from the SKU database of the identified store; and
repeatedly send instructions as the user shops in the identified store to successively guide the user to the mapped point location of each of the products on the shopping list according to the product availability information and the determined most efficient or fastest route;
wherein, after the global positioning system determines the identity of the store, the global positioning system is no longer used to determine the product location for each product, the product location being based exclusively on the SKU number within the identified store.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth and/or describes determining a most efficient or fastest route for a shopping list and successively guiding the user along the route. This represents the performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, such as following rules or instructions. This can also represent the performance of a commercial interaction (e.g., assisting a user during shopping by successively guiding a user along a route). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, claim 1 can also be understood to recite limitations that set forth or describe “mental processes” that are performable in the human mind, or by pen and paper. This is because the steps of claim 1 can be accomplished in the human mind, or using a physical aid such as pen and paper, and represent observations, evaluations or judgments (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example:
generate, from the accessed SKU database and from the shopping list, an aisle priority matrix that categorizes each product on the shopping list according to the SKU number and the aisle name and groups products located in a same aisle name sequentially within the aisle priority matrix;
using the aisle priority matrix, organizing and grouping items on the shopping list by aisle name; and,
generate, from the aisle priority matrix and from a store layout map of the identified store, a most efficient or a fastest route for the user to traverse the store to buy products on the shopping list, the route beginning at an entrance location on the store layout map and terminating at a checkout location on the store layout map, each product location in the SKU database corresponding to a mapped point on the store layout map, each mapped point designating a specific product location, wherein generating the most efficient or fastest route comprises determining a fastest route between the mapped points based on product location information exclusively retrieved from the SKU database of the identified store.
These steps can be performed in the human mind or using a physical aid such as pen and paper, and represent observations, evaluations or judgments. Notably, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 also recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including a mobile device of a user,
a processor, the processor being configured to access a global positioning system to determine a geographical location of the mobile device,
the processor being further configured to based on the identity of the store to connect directly to a stock keeping unit (SKU) system of the identified store to access an SKU database of products available for sale at the identified store, the SKU database including records for at least some of the products available for sale at the identified store, each of the records including at least product price, product location and product availability information and a stock keeping unit (SKU) number associated with an aisle name within the identified store;
associating each product on the shopping list with the SKU number in the SKU database;
retrieve, from the SKU database, for each associated product, the corresponding record including the product location and product availability information,
instructions to be displayed on the mobile device.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 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 an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In addition to the above, access a global positioning system, access an SKU database, retrieve, from the SKU database, for each associated product, and repeatedly sending instructions to be displayed on the mobile device represent little more than extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering and output) that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the abstract process for generating the most efficient or fastest shopping route (see: MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does 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 claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 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 claim 1 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.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8, dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-4 and 6-8 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 2-4 and 6-8 rely on at least similar additional elements (e.g., processor, database, mobile device, GPS) recited at a high-level of generality as discussed with claim 1. Further additional elements such as a display of the mobile device (claim 3), real-time interactions (claims 3, 7, and 8), and transmitting (claim 8) are also recited only 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 an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-4 and 6-8 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-4 and 6-8 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected on other grounds (e.g., 35 USC 101); however, the claims are not rejected under prior art. The claims remain allowable over the prior art for at least the reasons set forth in the Final Action mailed 2/25/2026, p. 10-11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights