DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant has not claimed priority to another application. Application 18/583,408 was filed 2/21/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs submitted on 2/21/2024 were previously considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 4/13/2026, have been entered. Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-38 are new and have been examined.
Indication of Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 21-38 (as interpreted) are novel in view of the prior art and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “use the retrieved at least one item characteristic for each item to attempt to identify an item type” in lines 43-44. The term “to attempt” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “to attempt” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will examine the limitations of lines 43-44 to read as:
“…use the retrieved at least one item characteristic for each item to
Claim 21 recites the limitation “use at least the retrieved indications of current availability to attempt to identify a first set of employees currently available” in lines 49-51. The term “to attempt” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “to attempt” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will examine the limitations of lines 49-51 to read as:
“…use at least the retrieved indications of current availability to
Claim 21 recites the limitation “to attempt to identify an employee among the first set having a high degree of familiarity…” in lines 61-62. The term “to attempt” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “to attempt” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will examine the limitations of lines 61-62 to read as:
“…
Claims 22-29 inherit the rejections of claim 21. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “to attempt to identify the first set of employees further comprises” in lines 8-9. The term “to attempt” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “to attempt” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will examine the limitations of lines 8-9 to read as “…
Claim 25 recites the limitation “to attempt to identify the first set of employees further comprises” in lines 8-9. The term “to attempt” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “to attempt” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will examine the limitations of lines 8-9 to read as “…Claims 26 and 27 inherit the rejections of claim 25. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “to attempt to identify an employee” in line 11. The term “to attempt” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “to attempt” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will examine the limitations of line 11 to read as “…Claim 27 inherits the rejections of claim 26. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 30-38 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements are recited in claims 21-29 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 30-38 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
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 21-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 21-29, are directed to a machine, the method, as claimed in claims 30-38, are directed to a process (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 30 (as interpreted) recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
storing
for each item of multiple items offered at a retail facility, an item identifier and at least one item characteristic;
for each shopper of multiple shoppers, the item-related data entered by the shopper; and
for each employee of multiple employees associated with the retail facility, indications of degree of familiarity with each item of the multiple items, indications of degree of familiarity with each item type of multiple item types of the multiple items, and an indication of current availability to provide assistance;
operating to monitor and receive:
indications of current availability of employees of the multiple employees;
item-related data comprising an item identifier or item characteristic; and
requests for assistance;
in response to receiving indications of current availability into which the indications of current availability are entered, storing updates to the indications of current availability;
in response to receiving item-related data into which the item-related data is entered, storing updates to the item-related data;
in response to receiving a request for assistance, retrieving, the item-related data associated with a shopper, and determining whether the retrieved item-related data includes an item identifier or at least one item characteristic;
in response to determining that the retrieved item-related data does not include an item identifier, but does include at least one item characteristic, retrieving and for each item, the at least one item characteristic, and using the retrieved at least one item characteristic for each item to identify an item type; and
in response to determining that the retrieved item-related data does include an item identifier, or in response to success in identifying an item type, performing further operations comprising:
retrieving the indications of current availability of the multiple employees, and using, at least the retrieved indications of current availability to identify a first set of employees currently available within the retail facility to provide the assistance; and
in response to success in identifying a first set of employees currently available within the retail facility, performing further operations comprising:
retrieving and for each employee of the first set, the indication of degree familiarity with either the specific item or the identified item type;
comparing the degrees of familiarity with either the specific item or the identified item type among the employees of the first set to identify an employee among the first set having a high degree of familiarity with the specific item or the identified item type that is higher than that of other employees of the first set by at least a predetermined threshold degree of difference; and
in response to success in identifying an employee among the first set with such a high degree of familiarity, transmitting that is associated with the identified employee of the first set, and for presentation, an indication of the request for assistance, along with the specific item or the identified item type.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in claim 30 are certain methods of organizing human activity because providing assistance to a shopper in a retail facility based on item and employee availability is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claim 30 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 21 recites the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 30. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claim 21 as described above for independent claim 30.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, claim 21 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A shopping support system comprising:
a set of shopping devices able to be moved about within a retail facility, wherein each shopping device provides a shopping user interface (UI) enabling entry of item- related data indicative of an item of interest, and a request for assistance;
a set of service devices able to be moved about within the retail facility, wherein each service device provides a service UI enabling entry of an indication of current availability to provide assistance;
a set of wireless access points (WAPs) installed at multiple locations within the retail facility to provide a wireless network, and to track movements of the set of shopping devices and the set of service devices about the retail facility;
a storage to store:
an item database comprising, for each item of multiple items offered at the retail facility, an item identifier and at least one item characteristic;
a shopper database comprising, for each shopper of multiple shoppers, the item-related data entered by the shopper; and
an employee database comprising, for each employee of multiple employees associated with the retail facility, indications of degree of familiarity with each item of the multiple items, indications of degree of familiarity with each item type of multiple item types of the multiple items, and an indication of current availability to provide assistance; and
at least one processor coupled to the storage and the set of multiple WAPs, and configured to perform operations comprising:
operate the set of WAPs to monitor the wireless network for, and receive:
indications, from the set of service devices, of current availability of employees of the multiple employees;
item-related data, from the set of shopping devices; and
requests for assistance, from the set of shopping devices;
in response to receiving indications of current availability, via the wireless network, and from the set of service devices, store, by the at least one processor, and in the employee database, updates to the indications of current availability;
in response to receiving item-related data, via the wireless network, and from the set of shopping devices, store, by the at least one processor, and in the shopper database, updates to the item-related data;
in response to receiving a request for assistance, via the wireless network, and from a shopping device of the set of shopping devices, retrieve, from the shopper database, the item-related data associated with a shopper associated with the shopping device, and determine whether the retrieved item-related data includes an item identifier or at least one item characteristic;
in response to determining that the retrieved item-related data does not include an item identifier, but does include at least one item characteristic, retrieve, from the item database, and for each item, the at least one item characteristic, and use the retrieved at least one item characteristic for each item to identify an item type; and
in response to determining that the retrieved item-related data does include an item identifier, or in response to success in identifying an item type, perform further operations comprising:
retrieve, from the employee database, the indications of current availability of the multiple employees, and use at least the retrieved indications of current availability to identify a first set of employees currently available within the retail facility to provide the assistance; and
in response to success in identifying a first set of employees currently available within the retail facility, perform further operations comprising:
retrieve, from the employee database, and for each employee of the first set, the indication of degree familiarity with either the specific item or the identified item type;
compare, the degrees of familiarity with either the specific item or the identified item type among the employees of the first set to identify an employee among the first set having a high degree of familiarity with the specific item or the identified item type that is higher than that of other employees of the first set by at least a predetermined threshold degree of difference; and
in response to success in identifying an employee among the first set with such a high degree of familiarity, transmit, from the at least one processor, via the wireless network, to a service device of the set of service devices that is associated with the identified employee of the first set, and for presentation via the service UI, an indication of the request for assistance, along with the specific item or the identified item type.
In this case, claim 30 (as interpreted) includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
storing, by at least one processor of a shopping support system, in a storage of the shopping support system:
an item database comprising, for each item of multiple items offered at a retail facility, an item identifier and at least one item characteristic;
a shopper database comprising, for each shopper of multiple shoppers, the item-related data entered by the shopper; and
an employee database comprising, for each employee of multiple employees associated with the retail facility, indications of degree of familiarity with each item of the multiple items, indications of degree of familiarity with each item type of multiple item types of the multiple items, and an indication of current availability to provide assistance;
operating, by the at least one processor, a set of wireless access points (WAPs) of the shopping support system that are installed at multiple locations throughout the retail facility to monitor a wireless network provided by the set of WAPs for, and receive:
indications, from a set of service devices of the shopping support system, of current availability of employees of the multiple employees;
item-related data, from a set of shopping devices of the shopping support system, comprising an item identifier or item characteristic; and
requests for assistance, from the set of shopping devices;
in response to receiving indications of current availability, via the wireless network, and from the set of service devices into which the indications of current availability are entered, storing, by the at least one processor, and in the employee database, updates to the indications of current availability;
in response to receiving item-related data, via the wireless network, and from the set of shopping devices into which the item-related data is entered, storing, by the at least one processor, and in the shopper database, updates to the item-related data;
in response to receiving a request for assistance, via the wireless network, and from a shopping device of the set of shopping devices, retrieving, by the at least one processor, and from the shopper database, the item-related data associated with a shopper associated with the shopping device, and determining, by the at least one processor, whether the retrieved item-related data includes an item identifier or at least one item characteristic;
in response to determining that the retrieved item-related data does not include an item identifier, but does include at least one item characteristic, retrieving by the at least one processor, and from the item database, and for each item, the at least one item characteristic, and using, by the at least one processor, the retrieved at least one item characteristic for each item to identify an item type; and
in response to determining that the retrieved item-related data does include an item identifier, or in response to success in identifying an item type, performing further operations comprising:
retrieving, by the at least one processor, and from the employee database, the indications of current availability of the multiple employees, and using, by the at least one processor, at least the retrieved indications of current availability to identify a first set of employees currently available within the retail facility to provide the assistance; and
in response to success in identifying a first set of employees currently available within the retail facility, performing further operations comprising:
retrieving, by the at least one processor, from the employee database, and for each employee of the first set, the indication of degree familiarity with either the specific item or the identified item type;
comparing, by the at least one processor, the degrees of familiarity with either the specific item or the identified item type among the employees of the first set to identify an employee among the first set having a high degree of familiarity with the specific item or the identified item type that is higher than that of other employees of the first set by at least a predetermined threshold degree of difference; and
in response to success in identifying an employee among the first set with such a high degree of familiarity, transmitting, from the at least one processor, via the wireless network, to a service device of the set of service devices that is associated with the identified employee of the first set, and for presentation via a service user interface (UI), an indication of the request for assistance, along with the specific item or the identified item type.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving information, storing information, transmitting information, retrieving information, displaying information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 21 and 30 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1, 2B-3B, 4B; paragraphs [0020]-[0028], [0033]-[0039], [0041]-[0063]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks). Further, the “wireless access points (WAPs)”, “shopping device”, “databases”, “display”, “user interface (UI)”, “wireless network interface”, “server”, “processor”, etc. are recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying the abstract idea.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving/retrieving, transmitting/requesting, displaying steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 21 and 30 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 21 and 30, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 21 and 30 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 21 and 30 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 21 and 30 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 21 and 30 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 22-24, 28, 31-33, 37
Dependent claim(s) 22-24, 28, 31-33, and 37, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 22-24, 28, 31-33, and 37 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 21 and 30 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 21 and 30.
Claims 22-24, 28, 31-33, and 37 set forth:
wherein: for each employee of the multiple employees associated with the retail facility, the employee database further comprises an indication of at least one past amount of time the employee required to assist at least one shopper; retrieving, by the at least one processor, from the employee database, the indications of current availability of the multiple employees further comprises, for each employee currently assisting a shopper, also retrieving, by the at least one processor, the indication of at least one past amount of time; and using, by the at least one processor, at least the retrieved indications of current availability to identify the first set of employees further comprises, for each employee currently assisting a shopper, also performing operations comprising: using, by the at least one processor, the retrieved indication of at least one past amount of time to generate a prediction of an amount of time the employee will require to complete assisting a shopper; and comparing, by the at least one processor, the predicted amount of time to a threshold amount of time determine whether the employee will become available soon enough to be included in the first set of employees.
further comprising, in response to success in identifying an employee among the first set with such a high degree of familiarity with the specific item or the identified item type, performing operations comprising: operating, by the at least one processor, the set of WAPs to identify a first location of the shopping device from which the request for assistance was received and a second location of the service device to which the indication of the request for assistance is transmitted; deriving, by the at least one processor, a distance between the first and second locations; comparing, by the at least one processor, the distance between the first and second locations to a predetermined threshold distance to determine whether the requested assistance is to be provided in person or remotely through the wireless network, and between the shopping device and the service device; in response to a determination that the assistance is to be provided in person, performing operations comprising: transmitting, from the at least one processor, via the wireless network, to the service device, and for presentation via the service UI, guidance to the location of the shopping device; and transmitting, from the at least one processor, via the wireless network, to the shopping device, and for presentation via a shopping UI of the shopping device, an indication of in-person assistance being on the way; and in response to a determination that the assistance is to be provided remotely, cooperating, via the wireless network, with the shopping device and the service device to establish communications, through the wireless network, between the shopping device and the service device.
further comprising, in response to being unable to identify an employee among the first set with such a high degree of familiarity with the specific item or the identified item type, performing operations comprising: broadcasting, from the at least one processor, via the wireless network, and to service devices of the set of service devices that are associated with the first set of employees, an indication of the request for assistance, along with the item identifier or the identified item type; awaiting, by the at least one processor, via the wireless network, and from a service device among the service devices that are associated with the first set of employees, a response that is indicative of an employee associated with the service device accepting the request for assistance; and in response to receiving the response from the service device, broadcasting, from the at least one processor, via the wireless network, and to all other service devices that are associated with all other employees of the first set of employees an indication of the request for assistance being responded to.
further comprising, in response to determining that the retrieved item-related data does not include either an item identifier or at least one item characteristic, transmitting, from the at least one processor, via the wireless network, to the shopping device, and for presentation via a shopping UI of the shopping device, a request for entry of an item identifier or an item characteristic.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of providing assistance to a shopper in a retail facility based on item and employee availability. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 21 and 30, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 21 and 30.
Thus, dependent claims 22-24, 28, 31-33, and 37 are ineligible.
Regarding claim 25-27, 29, 34-36, and 38
Dependent claim(s) 25-27, 29, 34-36, and 38 sets forth:
wherein: the shopping support system further comprising a set of remote devices; for each employee of the multiple employees associated with the retail facility, the employee database further comprises an indication of location specifying at least whether the employee is located at the retail facility or remote from the retail facility; retrieving, by the at least one processor, and from the employee database, the indications of current availability of the multiple employees further comprises also retrieving, by the at least one processor, the indication of location; and using, by the at least one processor, at least the retrieved indications of current availability to identify the first set of employees further comprises, using, by the at least one processor, the retrieved indications of location to limit the first set of employees to employees located at the retail facility.
further comprising, in response to being unable to identify any employees currently available for inclusion in the first set of employees, performing operations comprising: using, by the at least one processor, at least the retrieved indications of current availability and the retrieved indications of location to identify a second set of employees, remote from the retail facility, and currently available to provide assistance; retrieving, by the at least one processor, from the employee database, and for each employee of the second set, the indication of degree familiarity either with the specific item or with the identified item type; comparing, by the at least one processor, and among the employees of the second set, the degrees of familiarity with either the specific item or with the identified item type to identify an employee among the second set having a high degree of familiarity with the specific item or the identified item type that is higher than that of other employees of the second set by at least the predetermined threshold degree of difference; and in response to success in identifying an employee among the second set with such a high degree of familiarity with the specific item or the identified item type, transmitting, from the at least one processor, via the wireless network, and to a remote device of a set of remote devices that is associated with the identified employee of the second set, an indication of the request for assistance, along with the item identifier or the identified item type.
further comprising, in response to being unable to identify an employee among the second set with such a high degree of familiarity with the specific item or the identified item type, performing operations comprising: broadcasting, from the at least one processor, via the wireless network, and to remote devices of the set of remote devices that are associated with the second set of employees, an indication of the request for assistance, along with the item identifier or the identified item type; awaiting, by the at least one processor, a response from a remote device among the remote devices that are associated with the second set of employees that is indicative of an employee associated with the remote device accepting the request for assistance; and in response to receiving the response from the remote device, broadcasting, from the at least one processor, via the wireless network, and to all other remote devices that are associated with all other employees of the second set of employees an indication of the request for assistance being responded to.
wherein: each shopping device of the set of shopping devices comprises a scanning engine to capture an image of an indicia that encodes the item identifier of the specific item as part of serving as an input device of a shopping UI of the shopping device; the item-related data comprises the item identifier; and the item identifier is entered via use of the scanning engine capturing an image of an indicia associated with the specific item.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of providing assistance to a shopper in a retail facility based on item and employee availability. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “a set of remote devices”, “a scanning engine”, “an input device”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 21 and 30, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Further, the “scanning engine” is recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claim 25-27, 29, 34-36, and 38 is also ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 19-40, with respect to the previous claim objections, 35 USC §101 rejections, and 35 USC §103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the cancelation of claims 1-20. Accordingly the previous rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn. New claim rejections have been applied to new claims 21-38, as noted above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights