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 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102. Applicant cancelled claims 2, 9, and 16 and amended claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are now pending.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of the USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), which is a two-prong inquiry. In prong 1, it must be determined whether the claim recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon, and if so, in prong 2, it must be determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea in step 2a, it must additionally be determined in step 2b whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. MPEP §2106.04.
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system for providing navigation information, as in independent claim 1 and in the claims that depend therefrom. Such systems fall under the statutory category of “apparatus”. Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
Step 2A, prong 1. The invention is directed to a system for providing navigation information, which is a sales method and, hence, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. MPEP 2106.04(a). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. When considering the limitations individually and as a whole the limitations directed to the abstract idea are:
“A … system configured to locate and provide detailed navigation information to products at local retailers, the system comprising”:
“receive a user product search request via a …”;
“determine a geographic location of the … using a … of the …”;
“generate product search results including at least one retailer location and corresponding in-store product location data derived from stored store-layout data”;
“automatically generate, responsive to user selection of a product from the search results”,
“(i) route data defining navigation from the geographic location of the … to the retailer location”, and
“(ii) in-store routing data defining navigation from an entrance location of the retailer to the in-store product location using the stored store-layout data”;
“dynamically update the route data and the in-store routing data based on updated location information received from the …”; and
“output, via a …, navigation information based on the generated route data”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. a generic computing system performing generic functions including generic processing of data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. MPEP §2106.04. Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the Mayo framework, the examiner holds that the claims are directed to concepts identified as abstract.
STEP 2B. Because the claims include one or more abstract ideas, the examiner now proceeds to Step 2B of the analysis, in which the examiner considers if the claims include individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the "computer itself," "another technology," the "technical field," or significantly more than what is "well-understood, routine, or conventional" in the related arts.
The instant application includes in claim 1 additional limitations to those deemed to be abstract ideas. When taken individually, these limitations are
“computer-implemented”;
“one or more hardware processors and associated memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed, cause the system to”:
“user interface of a mobile computing device”;
“location-determination component”; and
“display of the mobile computing device”.
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to above mentioned abstract idea. Technical functions such as sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology. The individual limitations are recited at a high level and do not provide any specific technology or techniques to perform the functions claimed.
Looking to MPEP §2106.05(d), based on court decisions well understood, routine and conventional computer functions or mere instruction and/or insignificant activity have been identified to include: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321,120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TU Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); O/P Techs., /no., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F,3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir, 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPG2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink," (emphasis added)}; Insignificant intermediate or post solution activity -See Bilski v. Kappos, 581 U.S. 593, 611 -12, 95 USPQ2d 1001,1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); In Bilski referring to Flook, where Flook determined that an insignificant post-solution activity does not makes an otherwise patent ineligible claim patent eligible. In Bilski, the court added to Flook that pre-solution (such as data gathering) and insignificant step in the middle of a process (such as receiving user input) to be equally ineffective. The specification and Claim does not provide any specific process with respect to the display output that would transform the function beyond what is well understood. Like as found in Electric Power Group, Bilski, the technical process to implement the input and display functions are conventional and well understood.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add "significantly more" by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to the abstract idea. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using well-understood and conventional functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine functions for authorizing the timing of a payment and to activate a display screen based on a trigger or camera functions that could then be pointed to as being "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, examiner was not able to identify any "unconventional" steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts.
Further, note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computing devices. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device and require no more than a generic computing devices to perform generic functions.
CONCLUSION. It is therefore determined that the instant application not only represents an abstract idea identified as such based on criteria defined by the Courts and on USPTO examination guidelines, but also lacks the capability to bring about "Improvements to another technology or technical field" (Alice), bring about "Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself" (Alice), "Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" (Bilski), "Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing" (Diehr), "Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field" (Mayo), "Add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (Mayo), or contain "Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" (Alice), transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (McRO), or limitations directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software (Enfish).
Dependent claims 3-7, which impose additional limitations, also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 3-7, these dependent claims have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Claim 3 recites a “voice-activated” feature. Claim 5 recites “augmented reality glasses” and an “image projector”. Claim 7 recites an “interactive … map”. These are generic elements. The dependent claims have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary." Content Extraction &. Transmission LLC v, Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, applicant is invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Claim 8 is similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claims 10-14 depend from claim 8, are similar to claims 3-7, and are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 15 recites a “computer-readable memory”, which is a generic element. Claim 15 is otherwise similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claims 17-20 depend from claim 15, are similar to claims 3-7, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Moreover, claims 15 and 17-20 recite a computer-readable memory that is not restricted to being a non-transitory computer-readable memory. Claims 15 and 17-20 therefore include transitory forms of memory, such as propagating signals, and are directed to software per se. Claims 15-20 are therefore rejected for this reason as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0293644 A1 (hereinafter “Allen”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0040037 A1 (hereinafter “Blair”).
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, Allen discloses
“A computer-implemented system configured to locate and provide detailed navigation information to products at local retailers, the system comprising”: Allen, abstract;
“one or more hardware processors and associated memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed, cause the system to”: Allen ¶ 0017;
“receive a user product search request via a user interface of a mobile computing device”; Allen ¶ 0019, 0020 (user enters shopping list and searches for items);
“determine a geographic location of the mobile computing device using a location-determination component of the mobile computing device”; Allen, abstract, ¶¶ 0003, 0023;
“generate product search results including at least one retailer location and corresponding in-store product location data derived from stored store-layout data”; Allen ¶¶ 0020, 0021, 0025, 0040, 0053 (search results provide available products and locations, together with product information, such as price; store-layout data are combination of store floor plan and product location information);
“automatically generate, responsive to user selection of a product from the search results”, Allen ¶¶ 0020, 0021, 0025, 0040, 0053;
“(i) route data defining navigation from the geographic location of the mobile computing device to the retailer location”, Allen ¶ 0042 (directions to store are optionally provided); and
“(ii) in-store routing data defining navigation from an entrance location of the retailer to the in-store product location using the stored store-layout data”; Allen ¶ 0042, 0053 (directions to location in store, such as appropriate aisle, and store map are optionally provided);
“dynamically update the route data … based on updated location information received from the location-determination component”; Allen ¶ 0038, 0042, 0053 (directions are updated based on user device’s current location); and
“output, via a display of the mobile computing device, navigation information based on the generated route data”. Allen ¶¶ 0020, 0042, 0053 (navigation information is outputted to user mobile device).
Allen does not explicitly disclose updating in-store routing data. Blair discloses
“dynamically update … the in-store routing data based on updated location information received from the location-determination component”; Blair ¶¶ 0073, 0074, 0076 (directions are updated based on current user device location).
Both Allen and Blair relate to locating products in stores. Allen, abstract; Blair, abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the in-store updating feature as taught by Blair in the method of Allen with the motivation of directing users to desired products in stores. Blair ¶¶ 0002, 0003.
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17, Allen discloses
“wherein the user product search request is received via a voice-activated product search feature”. Allen ¶ 0020 (audio capture, which is voice activation, is optionally used in GUI)
With respect to claims 4 and 11, Allen discloses
“wherein the user product search request includes at least one of keywords, barcodes, and QR codes”. Allen ¶¶ 0022, 0039, 0045,0050 (keywords).
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 18, Allen discloses
“wherein the display comprises at least one of a visual display unit, Augmented Reality (AR) smart glasses, and an image projector”. Allen ¶¶ 0020, 0041 (smart phone has screen, which is a visual display unit).
With respect to claims 6, 13, and 19, Allen discloses
“wherein the navigation information includes at least one of turn-by-turn directions and map guidance to guide the user to the corresponding store location”. Allen ¶ 0053 (directions and store map can optionally be provided).
With respect to claims 7, 14, and 20, Allen discloses
“wherein the generated in-store routing data includes at least one of waypoints, turn-by-turn directions, and an interactive store map”. Allen ¶ 0053 (directions).
Remarks
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicant raises several arguments. Applicant argues that claim 1 recites specific technological navigation system functionality. Amendment, page 7. However, the cited technological elements are all generic, relating to standard gps functionality, displaying date of a user device, computing directions, and store planograms. Applicant further argues that such elements (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and (b) are significantly more than the abstract idea. However, because the claimed elements are generic and utilized in a routine manner, they are neither. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments relating to § 101 are not persuasive.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102, applicant’s arguments that Allen does not disclose certain amended claim limitations are persuasive. Accordingly, the additional reference Blair is cited. It is believed that applicant’s specific arguments are all moot in light of the additional reference.
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 ETHAN D CIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-6:30.
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, Jeffrey A 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.
ETHAN D. CIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/ETHAN D CIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688