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 .
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Claims 9-11, 13-18, 22-23 and 55-56 are withdrawn (as established previously).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.
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.
Applicant alleges that the claimed invention is a “technical solution to a technical problem”, emphasizing the using of computing components (e.g., system/database) to provision information in “real-time”. 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.
The phrase “real-time” simply means the actual time during which something takes place (e.g., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/real%20time), and itself does not confer any improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field. Notably, the court in Electric Power Group (830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1) held that a wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid was directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, determining a specific store “using the mobile device’s global positioning system” is little more than using generic GPS to facilitate the abstract determination. The claim provides no detail concerning the specific operation of the GPS such that one of ordinary skill would readily determine the claims provide an improvement to GPS technology. Similarly, the claims are silent with respect to any particular manner of “connecting” to the SKU database, and merely act to send and retrieve data in facilitation of the abstract process. Lastly, generating an aisle priority matrix is not an additional element, and forms part of the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the claims into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that the claimed invention may achieve some improvement in the abstract idea (e.g., route determination); however, improvements to an abstract idea is not tantamount to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field. Under Step 2B, similar analysis is applicable. Accordingly, the rejection has been maintained.
II. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the accompanying amendments. For further discussion see the heading below Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art.
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 location on the store layout map, and
repeatedly send instructions as the user shops in the identified store to successively guide the user to the mapped 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 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:
determine an identity of a store at which the user is located,
generate, from the accessed SKU database, from the shopping list, and from a store layout map of the identified store, a most efficient or a fastest route for the user to traverse the store, and repeatedly send instructions as the user shops in the identified store to successively guide the user to the mapped location of each of the products on the shopping list according to the product availability information and the determined most efficient or fastest route, 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 location on the store layout map.
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 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;
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, 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. As amended, claim 1 now recites the following:
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;
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 location on the store layout map;
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 on the SKU number within the identified store.
The Examiner emphasizes p. 10-12 of the Remarks, in relation to the limitations above, and asserts that the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed above. That is, the Examiner emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PTO form 892-U discloses shelf-space management to aid in improving customer shopping path and customer experience (see: abstract, Section 3).
Applicant's amendment necessitated any changes to the 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 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