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 .
Status of Application
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 were previously pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 13-15, and 17 were amended. Claim(s) 2, 6, 9-10, 12, 16, and 19-20 were left as originally/previously presented. Claim(s) 8 and 18 were cancelled. Claim(s) 21-22 were newly added. Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 10-14 of Applicant’s Response, filed May 13, 2026, with respect to ‘Alice,’ 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-22, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues, on page(s) 10-11, that the amended Independent
Claim(s) 1 and 11, do not fall within the revised Step 2A prong 1 framework under the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
As an initial matter, the above grouping along with its sub-groupings can encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-grouping(s).
In this case, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 11, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim as a whole recite limitation(s) that are directed to an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices or principles, commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including social activities and/or following rules or instructions). In particular
Independent Claim(s) 1 and 11, recite(s) “constructing a population space of the simulated customers based on historical data of customers, each of the simulated customers of the population space being defined by a vector of features of shopping behavior and interest over products in the store,” “constructing an objective function of interest concerning the simulated customers and the virtual representation of the store,” “iteratively update the virtual representation of the store including positions of products to find, based on the objective function of interest, a store layout that maximizes one or more metrics relating to the simulated customers and the products of the virtual representation of the store,” “generating an optimized layout for the store based on an outcome,” “wherein the optimized layout satisfies the objective function of interest and is based on buying preferences of the simulated customers,” “obtaining a set of restrictions that are employed during execution of a simulation of a first candidate optimized layout, the set of restrictions defining when a simulated customer, who is interacting with the first candidate optimized layout during the simulation, is selected for deletion form the simulation, wherein the set of restrictions define when the deletion of the simulated customer from the simulation is to occur, said deletion being based on a movement of the simulated customer within the first candidate optimized layout during the simulation, and wherein the set of restrictions further impose a penalty to the first candidate optimized layout when the simulated customer is caused to be deleted from the simulation,” “sending the first candidate optimized layout to a simulation process to perform the simulation, wherein the first candidate optimized layout is based on dimensions of the virtual representation of the store and includes an arrangement of the product,” “running the simulation for the first candidate optimized layout based on a radius of purchase and a purchase probability, wherein running the simulation includes executing the set of restrictions and wherein the simulation processor executing a model that computes movement vectors for each simulated customer based on (i) interactions with other simulated customers, (ii) interactions with store elements including products and obstacles, and (iii) the vector of features of shopping behavior and interest associated with the simulated customer, wherein positions of the simulated customers are updated over successive time steps based on the computed movement vectors to simulate movement of the simulated customers within the virtual representation of the store and wherein the purchase probability is dynamically computed using a probabilistic function based on the vector of features and spatial proximity of the simulated customer to products,” “determining that the first candidate optimized layout is a degenerate solution as a result of the simulated customer being deleted and the penalty being imposed, including detecting that the simulated customer exhibits a non-convergent movement pattern comprising at least one of cyclical movement or movement below a threshold displacement over a number of simulation iterations” and “updating the first candidate optimized layout to create a second candidate optimized layout, said updating includes a rearrangement of the products to create the second candidate optimized layout, wherein updating the first candidate optimized layout includes modifying positions of the products within the virtual representation of the store and causing the simulation to be re-executed until a termination condition of the objective function is satisfied” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices or principles, commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including social activities and/or following rules or instructions).
Similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v, Westlake Services, where the court found that that processing a credit application between a customer and dealer, where the business relation is the relationship between the customer and the dealer during the vehicle purchase was merely a commercial transaction, which, is a form of certain methods of organizing human activity. In this case, the claim(s) are similar to a business relationship between an entity and customers. The entity can collect customer historical data, customer movement data, and customer purchase data, which is then used to find an optimized store layout. The entity can then collect customer metric data, which the entity can use to update the virtual store layout and modify the positions of the products within the store layout, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a business relationship such as creating store layouts based on customer behavior(s) and interest(s).
Furthermore, as an initial matter, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The courts have also stated the use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another, see MPEP2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Similar to, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., when the court provided that a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps, which, were recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind.
Here, applicant’s claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality that can be performed in the human mind when the limitations recite collecting metrics for each customer from the running (i.e., collecting). The system can obtain a set of restrictions, which include a customer that interacts with the first layout (i.e., collecting). The system can construct a population space of customers based on historical data, each customer of the population space being defined by a vector of features of shopping behavior and interest over products in a store and an objective function of interest concerning the customers and the store (i.e., analyzing). The system can then find, based on the objective function of interest, a store layout that maximizes one or more metrics relating to the customers and products of the store and generate an optimized layout for the store based on an outcome (i.e., analyzing). The system will then send a virtual store layout to a simulation process, wherein the virtual store layout is based on dimensions of the store and includes an arrangement of the product and run the simulation process for the virtual store layout based on the radius of purchase and purchase probability. The system can then update the simulation process, which includes a rearrangement of the products within the store (i.e., analyzing). Thus, collecting customer information and store information, which the system uses that information to run and update store layouts, is merely related to a mental processes. Therefore, the claim(s) recite at least an abstract idea of mental processes. However, even assuming arguendo, that applicant has some merit that the claims cannot be performed mentally. The claims would still fall under certain methods of organizing human activity, see the above analysis.
Furthermore, even if we assume, that applicant has some merit that the claims cannot be performed by certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. The courts have provided when determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. It is also important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.
Examiner, respectfully, notes that the specific limitation(s) that fall within the subject matter groupings of the abstract idea are recited as “wherein running the simulation includes executing the set of restrictions and wherein the simulation processor executing a model that computes movement vectors for each simulated customer based on (i) interactions with other simulated customers, (ii) interactions with store elements including products and obstacles, and (iii) the vector of features of shopping behavior and interest associated with the simulated customer, wherein positions of the simulated customers are updated over successive time steps based on the computed movement vectors to simulate movement of the simulated customers within the virtual representation of the store and wherein the purchase probability is dynamically computed using a probabilistic function based on the vector of features and spatial proximity of the simulated customer to products,” step(s)/function(s) are merely mathematical concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations).
Examiner, respectfully, notes that the social force model is merely mathematical equation, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0022-0026 and 0045-0046; and applicant’s drawing(s) Figure 4.
Also, see using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812, 813 (CCPA 1979); and organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014).But, assuming that applicants don’t fall within mathematical concepts and/or mental processes the claim(s) would still fall under certain methods of organizing human activity, see the above analyze.
Second, Applicant argues, on page(s) 11-13, that the invention provides that the application is now integrated into a practical application thus sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Here, in this case the specification discloses a solution to preventing degenerate solutions by based on design considerations, see applicant’s arguments page(s) 9-10 and applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0054-0056. This is at best an improvement to the abstract idea (e.g., optimizing layouts based on deign restrictions) itself rather than a technological improvement. First, the step(s) of accomplishing this desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner by merely stating “avoid creation of degenerate solutions, some restrictions may be put in place in an embodiment, such as, adding a property to the vector K which indicates the position of the customer, and if the customer does not move significantly, or moves in circles, the virtual customer can be deleted from the simulation after a threshold number of interactions is reached, and a penalty may be added to the objective function, forcing the degenerate solution to be unfeasible,” see applicant’s paragraph 0056. Thus, when the specification states the improvement in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Also, another important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP §2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation (i.e., Social Force Model, see applicant’s drawings Figure 4 and applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0022-0026 and 0045-0046) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely constructing, constructing, finding, generating, obtaining, deleting, sending, running, computing, updating, determining, detecting, updating, modifying, and causing, respectively, store layouts using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., an optimization algorithm, one or more hardware processors, a social force model, and a non-transitory storage medium), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this case, applicant’s limitations lack the detail as to how the optimization algorithm is performing these step(s)/function(s). There is nothing in the specification and/or claims as to how the algorithm is able to use these rules to enhance some sort of computer/technical functionality. Applicant’s limitations focus more on the result of using a computer to perform simulation processes for optimizing layouts (e.g., “apply it”) rather than the technical improvement.
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer,” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when generating store layouts that efficiently make clients move through the store and make faster purchases, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0003-0004, 0018, and 0058, since the appending generic computer functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of generating store layouts thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
While applicant provides that the technical filed of improving simulation technology by incorporating customer preference vectors into a physical movement model, enabling more realistic and dynamic modeling of customer behavior. And the use of movement-based restrictions and penalties to detect and avoid degenerate solutions improves the operation of optimization algorithms by preventing convergence to unrealistic layouts, see applicant’s arguments on page 13. However, this at best this an improvement to the abstract idea of “applying,” rules to determine optimal layouts and customer behaviors using an algorithm, which doesn’t make the limitation(s) any less abstract. See, Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted) ('"[T]he prohibition on patenting an ineligible concept cannot be circumvented by limiting the use of an ineligible concept to a particular technological environment").
Also, merely using a learning model to iteratively be trained is what machine learning has always done. See, Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025). In that case, similar to here, “[t]he requirements that the machine learning model be ‘iteratively trained’ or dynamically adjusted in the Machine Learning Training patents do not represent a technological improvement” because “[i|terative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning.” Id. at 1212. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Third, applicant argues, on page 12, that the limitations are integrated into a practical application similar to those of McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial matter, the claims in McRO recited a “specific . . . improvement in computer animation” using “unconventional rules” that related “sub-sequences of
phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets” to automatically animate lip synchronization and facial expressions for three-dimensional characters that only human animators could previously produce. McRO, 837 F.3d at 130203, 1307–08, 1313–15. In McRO, “the incorporation of the claimed rules” improved an existing technological process. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314.
As an initial matter it should be noted that applicant’s claims are not as narrowly claimed as McRo. Furthermore, in contrast, applicant’s claims do not improve computer technology, but instead use computers to perform the claimed business solution. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36 (distinguishing between claims that focus on improving computer capabilities and those that invoke a computer as a tool). Notably, applicant’s claimed rule set does not actually define a particular set of rules. At most, applicant’s claims require the obtaining of a set of restrictions, then selecting a constraint to delete from a simulation and imposing a penalty. The system will run a simulation for optimizing a layout based on the restrictions based a determination and then update the layout for a more optimized layout, but this does not define a particular set of rules or clearly narrow the abstract idea of optimizing layouts based on a set of constraints. Moreover, applying rules for evaluating information is not analogous to applying rules to improve a technology, such as computer animation. Therefore applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Fourth, Applicant argues on page(s) 13-14 of applicants’ arguments, that the Claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicants argument.
As an initial matter, although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should: (1) Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; (2) Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h): (3) Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and (4) Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d), see MPEP 2106.5(B)(II).
Examiner respectfully notes that in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/25/2026 on page(s) 10-12 and 17-20, the Step 2B prong was used to analysis the previous Step 2A Prong Two additional elements that merely amounted to describing how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment thus Examiner carried over the identification of the additional elements and conclusions of the additional elements that were analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, which the analysis also explained how the limitations were not an improvement to the technology. As stated above, any claim elements that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity should be reevaluated under Step 2B for determining if they are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation (i.e., Social Force Model, see applicant’s drawings Figure 4 and applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0022-0026 and 0045-0046) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely constructing, constructing, finding, generating, obtaining, deleting, sending, running, computing, updating, determining, detecting, updating, modifying, and causing, respectively, store layouts using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., an optimization algorithm, one or more hardware processors, a social force model, and a non-transitory storage medium), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
It should also be noted that when making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In this respect, the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration overlaps with other Step 2B considerations, particularly the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a particular element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d). In this case, examiner provided why these limitations are not sufficient to show an improvement (e.g., Affinity Labs v. DirecTv; Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.; Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp.; and Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025)) and how the limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see the above analysis in the argument section(s). Thus, the claims do not provide an improvement to the modeling optimal store layouts. Therefore, applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because applicant during amendments seems to have accidently missed to add the term “the,” to the amendments. Applicant mistakenly missed the term “the,” from “one or more hardware processors,” in the limitation. The limitation recites “…optimization algorithm executed by one or more hardware processors….” Examiner, respectfully, notes that the limitation(s) should read as ““…optimization algorithm executed by the one or more hardware processors….” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1 and 11, recites an entity that is able generate an optimized layout of a store based on an optimization function. The entity can apply restrictions, which the entity can delete a layout based customer movement and impose penalty to a layout. The entity can determine a second optimal layout based on the data and rearrange products in the layout. Independent Claim(s) 1 and 11 as a whole recites limitation(s) that are directed to the abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (e.g., insurance) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices or principles, commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment) and/or mathematical concepts (e.g., mathematical calculations).
Independent Claim(s) 1 and 11 recite(s) ““constructing a population space of the simulated customers based on historical data of customers, each of the simulated customers of the population space being defined by a vector of features of shopping behavior and interest over products in the store,” “constructing an objective function of interest concerning the simulated customers and the virtual representation of the store,” “iteratively update the virtual representation of the store including positions of products to find, based on the objective function of interest, a store layout that maximizes one or more metrics relating to the simulated customers and the products of the virtual representation of the store,” “generating an optimized layout for the store based on an outcome,” “wherein the optimized layout satisfies the objective function of interest and is based on buying preferences of the simulated customers,” “obtaining a set of restrictions that are employed during execution of a simulation of a first candidate optimized layout, the set of restrictions defining when a simulated customer, who is interacting with the first candidate optimized layout during the simulation, is selected for deletion form the simulation, wherein the set of restrictions define when the deletion of the simulated customer from the simulation is to occur, said deletion being based on a movement of the simulated customer within the first candidate optimized layout during the simulation, and wherein the set of restrictions further impose a penalty to the first candidate optimized layout when the simulated customer is caused to be deleted from the simulation,” “sending the first candidate optimized layout to a simulation process to perform the simulation, wherein the first candidate optimized layout is based on dimensions of the virtual representation of the store and includes an arrangement of the product,” “running the simulation for the first candidate optimized layout based on a radius of purchase and a purchase probability, wherein running the simulation includes executing the set of restrictions and wherein the simulation processor executing a model that computes movement vectors for each simulated customer based on (i) interactions with other simulated customers, (ii) interactions with store elements including products and obstacles, and (iii) the vector of features of shopping behavior and interest associated with the simulated customer, wherein positions of the simulated customers are updated over successive time steps based on the computed movement vectors to simulate movement of the simulated customers within the virtual representation of the store and wherein the purchase probability is dynamically computed using a probabilistic function based on the vector of features and spatial proximity of the simulated customer to products,” “determining that the first candidate optimized layout is a degenerate solution as a result of the simulated customer being deleted and the penalty being imposed, including detecting that the simulated customer exhibits a non-convergent movement pattern comprising at least one of cyclical movement or movement below a threshold displacement over a number of simulation iterations” and “updating the first candidate optimized layout to create a second candidate optimized layout, said updating includes a rearrangement of the products to create the second candidate optimized layout, wherein updating the first candidate optimized layout includes modifying positions of the products within the virtual representation of the store and causing the simulation to be re-executed until a termination condition of the objective function is satisfied,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices, and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment) and/or mathematical concepts (e.g., mathematical calculations). Furthermore, as, explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.). For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 11, are similar to an entity constructing an optimized layout of a store based on a set of restrictions, customer movements, and purchase behavior of customers. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: an optimization algorithm, one or more hardware processors, social force model; and Claim 11: a non-transitory storage medium, one or more hardware processors, social force model, and an optimization algorithm) do not take the claims out of the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 11, recites the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “constructing,” “constructing,” “finding,” “generating,” “obtaining,” “deleting,” “sending,” “running,” “computing,” “updating,” “determining,” “detecting,” “updating,” “modifying,” and “causing,” respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: an optimization algorithm, one or more hardware processors, social force model; and Claim 11: a non-transitory storage medium, one or more hardware processors, social force model, and an optimization algorithm). Examiner, notes that the optimization algorithm, social force model, non-transitory storage medium, and one or more hardware processors, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation (i.e., Social Force Model, see applicant’s drawings Figure 4 and applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0022-0026 and 0045-0046) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely constructing, constructing, finding, generating, obtaining, deleting, sending, running, computing, updating, determining, detecting, updating, modifying, and causing, respectively, store layouts using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., an optimization algorithm, one or more hardware processors, a social force model, and a non-transitory storage medium), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this case, applicant’s limitations lack the detail as to how the optimization algorithm is performing these step(s)/function(s). There is nothing in the specification and/or claims as to how the algorithm is able to use these rules to enhance some sort of computer/technical functionality. Applicant’s limitations focus more on the result of using a computer to perform simulation processes for optimizing layouts (e.g., “apply it”) rather than the technical improvement.
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer,” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when generating store layouts that efficiently make clients move through the store and make faster purchases, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0003-0004, 0018, and 0058, since the appending generic computer functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of generating store layouts thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
While applicant provides that the technical filed of improving simulation technology by incorporating customer preference vectors into a physical movement model, enabling more realistic and dynamic modeling of customer behavior. And the use of movement-based restrictions and penalties to detect and avoid degenerate solutions improves the operation of optimization algorithms by preventing convergence to unrealistic layouts, see applicant’s arguments on page 13. However, this at best this an improvement to the abstract idea of “applying,” rules to determine optimal layouts and customer behaviors using an algorithm, which doesn’t make the limitation(s) any less abstract. See, Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted) ('"[T]he prohibition on patenting an ineligible concept cannot be circumvented by limiting the use of an ineligible concept to a particular technological environment").
Also, merely using a learning model to iteratively be trained is what machine learning has always done. See, Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025). In that case, similar to here, “[t]he requirements that the machine learning model be ‘iteratively trained’ or dynamically adjusted in the Machine Learning Training patents do not represent a technological improvement” because “[i|terative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning.” Id. at 1212. Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not practical application(s) of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply it,” to the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2-6, 9-10, 12-16, and 19-20: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 2-6, 9-10, 12-16, and 19-20, merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim(s) 1 and 11, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 : The additional limitation of “capturing,” and “modeling,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts, as described in Claim(s) 1 and 11. The non-transitory storage medium is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer The recitation(s) of “wherein each of the simulated customers is associated with a respective vector that captures preferences of the customer,” and “modeling interaction of the customers with one or more products by merging a social force model (SFM) with the vectors,” function(s)/step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely capturing and modeling, layout information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 7 and 17 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 21: The additional limitation of “computing,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts, as described in Claim 1. The social force model is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer The recitation(s) of “computes the movement vectors based on a sum of forces including: a repulsive force between simulated customers, a force associated with interactions between the simulated customers and store elements including obstacles, and an attraction or repulsion force based on the vector of features of shopping behavior and interest associated with each simulated customer,” function(s)/step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation (i.e., Social Force Model, see applicant’s drawings Figure 4 and applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0022-0026 and 0045-0046) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, see (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely computing, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 21 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 22: The additional limitation of “computing,” “detecting,” “determining,” “updating,” and “determining,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts, as described in Claim 1. The computer-generated model is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer The recitation(s) of “computing the movement vectors comprises determining a gradient of a potential function representing interactions between the simulated customers and elements of the virtual representation of the store,” “wherein detecting the non-convergent movement pattern comprises determining that a displacement of the simulated customer over a plurality of simulation iterations is below a predefined threshold,” “updating the positions of the simulated customers over successive time steps comprises updating the positions based on acceleration derived from the computed movement vectors,” “the purchase probability is determined using a probabilistic distribution conditioned on at least one of customer attributes and spatial proximity to products,” “the virtual representation of the store a model including spatial relationships between aisles, products, and obstacles that constrain movement of the simulated customer,” function(s)/step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation (i.e., Social Force Model, see applicant’s drawings Figure 4 and applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0022-0026 and 0045-0046) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, see (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely computing, detecting, determining, updating, and determining, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 22 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19-22, above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-22 are not patent eligible.
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 BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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 Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights