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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 3/12/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-17, 19-25 are pending in the application.
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 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13-17, 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction, including advertising activities/behaviors, business relations, sales activities, which represents a method of organizing human activity and has been identified as an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106. The relevant claimed limitations include:
display content associated with a product being offered for purchase in the physical store / an asset identifier (ID) coupled to the assistant device / in response, obtain from a checkout station located within the checkout section, purchase data associated with the second set of assistant devices, and determine an effectiveness of the content based on the first set of asset IDs, the second set of asset IDs, and the purchase data / detect, based on the first signal, the first set of asset IDs associated with the first set of assistant devices and a first timestamp / detect, based on the second signal, the second set of asset IDs associated with the second set of assistant devices and a second timestamp / determine that the second set of asset IDs overlap with the first set of asset IDs and that the second timestamp is later than the first timestamp / generate a base store spatial model that contains a spatial relationship between the media device and the first sensor as a first set of coordinates representing the first location / based on the determination of the effectiveness of the content, modify, at least one of the coordinates in the first set of coordinates contained in the base store spatial model to a second set of coordinates representing a second location within the physical store. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “Furthermore, in the following, various embodiments are described with respect to method and systems for determining in-store advertisement effectiveness. In some embodiments, a media device is located in a store of an entity and configured to display an advertisement about a product. Shopping assistant devices are owned by the entity and used by customers to assist their shopping in the store. Each of the shopping assistant devices has an asset identifier (ID). A first sensor is configured to detect a first set of asset IDs coupled to a first set of shopping assistant devices around the media device during a display of the advertisement. At least one second sensor is configured to detect a second set of asset IDs coupled to a second set of shopping assistant devices around a checkout section during or after the display of the advertisement. At least one processor is configured to: obtain purchase data associated with the second set of shopping assistant devices; and determine an effectiveness of the advertisement based on: the first set of asset IDs, the second set of asset IDs, the product, and the purchase data”, “While the retailer or entity owning the store wants to obtain impression data of the advertisement 122 shown on the media device 120 to estimate advertisement effectiveness”, “The systems described here ultimately provide value for the retailer or company owning the store by providing data to determine the effectiveness of media (e.g. advertisements) encountered during a shopping path on a customer’s final purchasing decisions. Purchasing decision data is readily available through transaction logs now, but this is frequently tied to personally identifiable information if customers chose to use credit cards in the transaction”, “In some embodiments, based on the above method, the system can determine an effectiveness of the shoe advertisement. For example, a customer starts the shopping journey at 12:00 PM. Then at 12:05 PM, the system determines that the shoe advertisement is displayed to the customer, based on detection of the customer’s shopping cart RFID by an RFID reader near the advertisement display. Then the customer added the shoes as advertised into the shopping cart. At 12:20 PM, the customer goes through a checkout station, such that the system determines that the customer did purchase the shoes that the customer was advertised at 12:05 PM, e.g. based on detection of the customer’s shopping cart RFID by an RFID reader near the checkout station, and the purchase data recorded from the purchase order of the customer recorded by the checkout station.” Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: generate a base store spatial model that contains a spatial relationship between the media device and the first sensor as a first set of coordinates representing the first location / based on the determination of the effectiveness of the content, modify, at least one of the coordinates in the first set of coordinates contained in the base store spatial model to a second set of coordinates representing a second location within the physical store. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a media device located at a physical store associated with an entity / a plurality of assistant devices owned by the entity and users by customers to assist the customers at the physical store / first and second sensors, wherein the at least one second sensor is located within a checkout section of the physical store / processor coupled to the sensors / memory device / data gathering via sensors (detect a first set of asset IDs coupled to a first set of assistant devices of the plurality of assistant devices when the first set of assistant devices are within a first predetermined range of the media device during the display of content / detect a second set of asset IDs coupled to a second set of assistant devices of the plurality of assistant devices when the second set of assistant devices are within a second predetermined range of the at least one second sensor / receive a first signal from the first sensor when the first set of assistant devices are within the first predetermined range during the display of content / receive a second signal from the at least one second sensor when the second set of assistant devices are within the second predetermined range of the at least one second sensor). The media device / assistant devices/ sensors/ processor / memory device represent generic computing elements. Data gathering via sensors represents insignificant pre-solution activity – i.e. data gathering. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing element represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Data gathering via sensors represents insignificant pre-solution activity - i.e. it represents a well known and commonly used means of data gathering, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date. Ebrahimi (20170098882 ), filing date of 9/2016, teaches that “radio frequency identification (RFID) systems have been very popular recently in numerous short range data communication applications (e.g., sensor networks, data acquisition, object tracking, retail industry, etc.). “ – at least para 5. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9, 15 are directed to a method and computer readable medium for performing the claimed limitations of claim 1; claims 9, 15 do recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Claims 9, 15 perform the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 9, 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19-25 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further recite the additional elements of an electronic display device /a media device/ a phone or tablet / detecting asset data via RFID, a media device. The devices/phone or tablet/media device represent generic computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality. Detecting asset data via RFID does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the additional elements above, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims
1-20. Johnson (20050187819) teaches measuring the effectiveness of advertisements placed at the points of product selection and, more particularly, with measuring the effect of advertisements placed in shopping carts and with using such measurements to determine levels of payment for such advertisements, including the content display including a sensor for determining whether the content is displayed in the presence of a consumer. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. Wollinsky (20120019393) teaches tracking carts in a retail store, including
communicating signals into the pathways from multiple locations, where the signals may include identifiers indicative of location of respective signals. The communicated signals with the identifiers may be received, and the identifiers may be recorded. The recorded data may be processed to determine a path taken by the shopping cart through the retail store. The path of the shopping cart taken through the retail store may be presented to a user. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. When taken as a whole, the pending independent claims and thus their respective dependent claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Although different in scope, independent claims 9 and 15 recite similar subject matter. When considered at least as a whole, the above quoted features integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application, and thus claims 1, 9, and 15 recite patentable subject matter. For example, the claims are similar to Example 36, claim 2, published with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (hereinafter "2014 Guidance"), which is directed to a system for managing inventory. The present claims are patentable for similar reasons as those provide for Example 36, claim 2. As discussed in the 2014 Guidance with respect to Example 36, claim 2, the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea of inventory management under step 2B, because claim 2 includes meaning limitations "to track items of inventory," which "was not well understood, routine, convention activity to those in the field of inventory control." Example 36, claim 2 "provides the technological solution to the technological problem of automatically tracking objects the claimed solution here is necessarily rooted in
computer technology to address a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer vision systems." The claimed limitations in Example 36, claim 2, "are not simply an attempt to generally link the abstract idea to the technological environment of computer vision systems," but are "meaningful limitations that confine the claim to a particular useful application." Similarly, claim 1 of the present application amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea of a commercial interaction, because claim 1 includes meaningful limitations to determining the effectiveness of media content associated with a product
being offered for purchase in [a] physical store, which "was not well understood, routine, conventional activity to those in the field" of measuring content effectiveness. For example, Applicant's Specification states, among other things, that "[u]sing the time- stamped, unique cart identifier (ID) output of a single reader on an advertisement display . Thus, Applicant's independent claims involve an "inventive concept" under 35 U.S.C. § 101, at least because the claims recite features that exceed "well-understood, routine, conventional activities" already known in the industry. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 224-225. See Specification, paras. [0073], [0074]. 4 (Emphases added). Claim 1 also provides a technological solution that allows for automatically modifying the location of media content based on a determined effectiveness of the media content. As such, the claimed subject matter of claim 1 is not simply an attempt to generally link the
alleged abstract idea to a technological environment of asset tracking, but instead includes "meaningful limitations that confine the claim to a particular useful application" for determining the effectiveness of media content. Even if the claimed concept can be related to commercial interactions, the claimed concept itself is not an "abstract idea of organizing human activity," at least because claim 1 is integrated into a practical application. As an example, Applicants respectfully refer the Office to "Example 37, claim 1" on page 2 of the "Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas," issued by the Office on January 7, 2019. For instance, in determining that Claim 2 is integrated into a practical application, the Example states that "[i]f a computer user wants a non-typical arrangement of icons, the user would need to manually manipulate the icons on their display" and that, therefore, claim 1 "addresses this issue by providing a method for rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the method moves the must used icons to a position on the GUI." In other words, the process of manually manipulating icons on a display to achieve a desired arrangement requires additional time and effort by the user, which Example 37 addresses by providing a method that automatically arranges the icons based on the determined amount of use of each icon. Similarly, here, the claimed subject matter
automatically and programmatically identifies successful purchases of products from customers who are likely exposed to content related to the products in a physical store, and based on a determination of an effectiveness of the content, modifies the location of the content within a modeled representation of the physical store, thereby saving time and effort of attempting to manually determine whether advertised content is effective, and updating (i.e., by pen and paper) a model of a store to track the placement of media devices. For at least these reasons, the subject matter of claim 1 is patent eligible. Claims 9 and 15, although different in scope, recite similar subject matter, and appear to have been rejected for similar reasons. Therefore, at least for one or more similar reasons as set forth above, independent claims 9 and 15 are also patent eligible. Applicant further notes that the dependent claims are also patent eligible at least because they depend from patent eligible independent claims and for the elements recited therein. Applicant respectfully requests the reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. $101. New dependent claims 24 and 25 depend from, and include all limitations of, amended claim 1. As such, new dependent claims 24 and 25 recite patent-eligible subject matter for at least depending from an allowable claim, and for further reasons recited therein. In addition, new dependent claim 24 recites, "the at least one processor is further configured to overlay, within the memory device, the modified base store spatial model onto a map of the physical store." These additional features integrate the alleged abstract idea of a commercial interaction into a practical application and, in any event, further amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Indeed, claim 24 offers a practical application of determining the effectiveness of media content associated with a product being offered for purchase in a physical store. Automatically overlaying a base store spatial model, configured to contain coordinates between sensors and media devices, over a map of a physical store can be used to automatically illustrate how the media devices, and therefore the displayed content, are arranged in the physical store. For this additional reason, new dependent claim 24 further recites patent eligible subject matter. Furthermore, new dependent claim 25 recites, "detect that the media device has been replaced with another media device, distinct from the media device, at the first location; remove, from the base store spatial model, the spatial relationship between the media device and the first sensor; and add, to the base store spatial model, another spatial relationship between the other media device and the first sensor as the first set of coordinates representing the first location." These additional features integrate the alleged abstract idea of a commercial interaction into a practical application and, in any event, further amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Indeed, claim 25 includes meaningful limitations to determining the effectiveness of media content associated with a product being offered for purchase in a physical store, and further automatically updating the relationship between different media content items and sensors within the base store spatial model. These limitations are not capable of being performed using, for example, pen and paper. For this additional reason, new dependent claim 25 further recites patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests an indication that new dependent claims 24 and 25 are in condition for allowance.
When performing the 35 USC 101 analysis, the Examiner has followed the current MPEP guidance; the Examiner has also taken the Memorandum dated August 4, 2025/ Dec. 5 Memo, 2025 / Appeal (Ex-Parte Desjardins) into consideration. As noted above, the pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “Furthermore, in the following, various embodiments are described with respect to method and systems for determining in-store advertisement effectiveness. In some embodiments, a media device is located in a store of an entity and configured to display an advertisement about a product. Shopping assistant devices are owned by the entity and used by customers to assist their shopping in the store. Each of the shopping assistant devices has an asset identifier (ID). A first sensor is configured to detect a first set of asset IDs coupled to a first set of shopping assistant devices around the media device during a display of the advertisement. At least one second sensor is configured to detect a second set of asset IDs coupled to a second set of shopping assistant devices around a checkout section during or after the display of the advertisement. At least one processor is configured to: obtain purchase data associated with the second set of shopping assistant devices; and determine an effectiveness of the advertisement based on: the first set of asset IDs, the second set of asset IDs, the product, and the purchase data”, “While the retailer or entity owning the store wants to obtain impression data of the advertisement 122 shown on the media device 120 to estimate advertisement effectiveness”, “The systems described here ultimately provide value for the retailer or company owning the store by providing data to determine the effectiveness of media (e.g. advertisements) encountered during a shopping path on a customer’s final purchasing decisions. Purchasing decision data is readily available through transaction logs now, but this is frequently tied to personally identifiable information if customers chose to use credit cards in the transaction”, “In some embodiments, based on the above method, the system can determine an effectiveness of the shoe advertisement. For example, a customer starts the shopping journey at 12:00 PM. Then at 12:05 PM, the system determines that the shoe advertisement is displayed to the customer, based on detection of the customer’s shopping cart RFID by an RFID reader near the advertisement display. Then the customer added the shoes as advertised into the shopping cart. At 12:20 PM, the customer goes through a checkout station, such that the system determines that the customer did purchase the shoes that the customer was advertised at 12:05 PM, e.g. based on detection of the customer’s shopping cart RFID by an RFID reader near the checkout station, and the purchase data recorded from the purchase order of the customer recorded by the checkout station.” Improving the in-store ad effectiveness and improving the customer shopping satisfaction represents a business practice optimization, not an improvement to other technology/technical field. The amended claimed limitations pertaining to the base store spatial model/location coordinates recite the abstract idea of a commercial interaction, as well as the abstract idea of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, as noted above. Updating the base store spatial model pertains to a business practice optimization and to a process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper; it does not represent an improvement to other technology/technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computing device itself. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec., including the paras referenced above by the Applicant, that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field.
The instant pending claimed invention and Example 36, Claim 2 have different fact patterns and different claim sets, and thus the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Example 36, Claim 2 was deemed as patent eligible since the claimed video camera array with reconstruction software provides the technological solution to the technological problem of automatically tracking objects and determining their physical position using a computer vision system. The claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology to address a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer vision systems. The claimed limitations are not simply an attempt to generally link the abstract idea to the technological environment of computer vision systems. Rather, these are meaningful limitations that confine the claim to a particular useful application. Accordingly, when viewed as a combination, the additional elements thus yield a claim as a whole that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea of inventory management (Step 2B: Yes). Contrary to Example 36, Claim 2, the instant pending claims are not necessarily rooted in computer technology to solve Internet-centric problems. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. The pending instant claims also do not provide a technological solution to a technical problem of automatically tracking objects and determining their physical position using a computer vision system. Unlike DDR Holdings, Applicant’s device is not claimed as solving or otherwise addressing an Internet-centric problem, but rather is directed to an abstract idea as discussed supra.
The pending claimed invention and Example 37, Claim 2 have different fact patterns and different claim sets, and thus the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Example 37, Claim 2 was deemed as patent eligible since it does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Thus, the claim is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception. Contrary to Example 37, Claim 2, the instant pending claims do recite an abstract idea, as noted above.
See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
3/16/2026