DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
Claims 11-18 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-10 and 19-28 remain pending and stand rejected.
Response To Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 for non-statutory subject matter have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the accompanying amendments.
Notably, Applicant has not provided arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 for claiming Judicial Exception without significantly more. Although the rejection for non-statutory subject matter has been withdrawn in view of the amendments, the rejection for judicial exception is maintained.
II. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101: Judicial exception
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 1-10 and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-10 and 19-28, under Step 2A claims 1-10 and 19-28 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a method comprising:
receiving a product specification from a user, wherein the product specification comprises one or more features of the product;
identifying a product of the plurality of products corresponding to the product specification; and
notifying the user of a location of a respective beacon of the plurality of beacons associated with the identified product.
These limitations recite organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions fundamental economic principals or practices (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth and/or describes product identification and location notification. This represents the performance of marketing or sales activities or behaviors, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including associating respective ones of a plurality of beacons with respective ones of a plurality of products, wherein each product of the plurality of products is associated with a single respective beacon of the plurality of beacons
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In addition to the above, associating respective ones of a plurality of beacons with respective ones of a plurality of products - even assuming arguendo it does not form part of the abstract idea – represent little more than extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering, storing data) that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (see: MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
electronic recordkeeping.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, dependent claims 2-10 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 2-10. As such, claims 2-10 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-10 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 2-10 rely on at least similar additional elements as addressed in claim 1. Further additional elements such as a sensing a beacon using an RFID tag or scanning a code (claims 2-4), a server and application executable on a processor of a mobile device (claim 5), mobile computing device (claim 7 and 10), illuminating a light (claim 8), and an application executable on a processor of a mobile computing device (claim 9) are also recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-10 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronically scanning or extracting data, or presenting offers), specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-10 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 19-28, claims 19-28 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-10 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 19-28 are rejected under at least similar rationale for being ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 19, and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (US 2017/0148077) in view of Tanaka (US 2022/0129971).
Regarding claim 1, Phillips a method comprising:
associating respective ones of a plurality of beacons with respective ones of a plurality of products (see: 0053, 0056, 0062, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 6);
receiving a product specification from a user (see: 0028 (request the location of a particular product), 0045 (receive product location request), 0058 (create a list of desired products), 0060 (a customer is requesting information about a particular product));
identifying a product of the plurality of products corresponding to the product specification (see: 0028 (from a database of unique product identifiers), 0045 (identify the location related to the location request), 0058 (locate product package within a retail outlet), 0060 (determine a product is being requested));
notifying the user of a location of a respective beacon of the plurality of beacons associated with the identified product (see: 0045 (transmit a unique display message), 0061 (product environmental data, product location, and/or an image is transmitted to display)).
Though disclosing all of the above, Phillips does not disclose wherein each product of the plurality of products is associated with a single respective beacon of the plurality of beacons, and, wherein the product specification comprises one or more features of the product. Notably, Phillips does teach a list of desired products, which implies receiving some product information concerning specific products (though not necessarily product features).
To this accord, Tanaka teaches a shopping system that provides each product of a plurality of products with a single respective beacon of a plurality of beacons (see: Fig. 1 (12), 0030, Fig. 3), and,
wherein the product specification comprises one or more features of the product (see: 0063 (preferences include clothing categories (e.g., casual, classic, street, vintage, or chic), 0065-0066 (body size, attributes), 0070, Fig. 5 (s101, s102, s105)). Notably, preferences, body size and user attribute are correlate to product features that are used to select the items having those features for indication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Phillips to have utilized the known technique for identifying individual items as taught by Tanaka to have provided an item indication system that enabled users to easily find items among many items by indicating appropriate items in a manner such that they were distinguishable from other items (see: Tanaka: 0006, 0071).
2. The method as in claim 1, wherein associating respective ones of a plurality of beacons with respective ones of a plurality of products comprises sensing a product proximate a beacon (see: 0011 (product package with a conductive ink tag, NFC tag, or radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag), 0056).
3. The method as in claim 2, wherein sensing the product proximate the beacon comprises reading, via the beacon, an RFID tag of the product (see: 0011 (NFC tag or radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag), 0038, 0063).
4. The method as in claim 2, wherein sensing the product proximate the beacon comprises scanning, via the beacon, a readable code of the product (see: 0010-0011, 0015, 0018, 0038, 0063).
Note: each of the conductive ink tag, RFID tag or NFC tag are read (i.e., scanned).
5. The method as in claim 1, comprising:
providing a server in communication with the plurality of beacons (see: 0043 (database of unique product identifiers…may be located on a server), 0062 (connected server system, which collates the information and directs the flow of data and information from and to the appropriate location and/or electronic device), Fig. 1 (120, 130),); and
providing to the user an application executable on a processor of a mobile computing device, the application to receive product specifications from the user, and to communicate the product specifications to the server (see: Fig. 1 (141), 0058 (consumer application 141 which enables a consumer to create a list of desired products prior to entering a retail outlet), 0060 (product is being requested by a consumer application 141)),
wherein receiving product specifications from the user comprises receiving product specifications at the server from the mobile computing device (see: Fig. 1 (141), 0058 (consumer application 141 which enables a consumer to create a list of desired products prior to entering a retail outlet), 0060 (product is being requested by a consumer application 141)).
6. The method as in claim 1, comprising identifying a respective beacon of the plurality of beacons associated with a product corresponding to the product specification (see: 0028 (personalized message may also appear on a NFC shelf display to aid a consumer in locating said particular product; shelf control system operable to send a command to the shelf display to illuminate thereby locating the requested product by the consumer), 0061 (product environmental data, product location, and/or an image is transmitted to display on a NFC shelf display 302 in block 205 so that it may be readily viewable by the consumer)).
7. The method as in claim 1, wherein notifying the user of the location of the respective beacon associated with the identified product comprises activating an alert on a mobile computing device (see: 0028 (a consumer in a retail outlet may use a consumer application on a consumer operated external device to request the location of a particular product and receive a personalized message from a database of unique product identifiers on the consumer operated external device detailing the location of said particular product)).
8. The method as in claim 1, wherein notifying the user of a location of a single respective beacon of the plurality of beacons comprises illuminating a light associated with the beacon (see: Tanaka: 0030, 0035, 0058, 0071).
Regarding claims 19, claims 19 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, claims 19 is rejected under at least similar rationale discussed above and is anticipated by Phillips. Further, Notably, Phillips expressly discloses an application executable on a processor of a mobile computing device in at least Fig. 1 (141), 0028, 0058, 0060-0061.
22. The application of claim 19, wherein the application is to receive product information from a server for a beacon comprising a sensor of a product proximate the beacon (see: Phillips: Fig. 1 (110, 111-112, 120), 0011, 0056, 0062).
23. The application of claim 22, wherein the sensor is a RFID tag reader and wherein the application is to receive product information obtained by the RFID tag reader from a RFID tag associated with the product (see: Philips: 0011 (NFC tag or radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag), 0038, 0063).
24. The application of claim 22, wherein the sensor comprises a code reader (see: Phillips: 0010-0011, 0015, 0018, 0038, 0063).
Note: each of the conductive ink tag, RFID tag or NFC tag are read.
25. The application of claim 19, wherein the application is to notify the user of the location of the identified beacon comprises an instruction to activate an alert on a mobile computing device (see: Phillips: 028 (a consumer in a retail outlet may use a consumer application on a consumer operated external device to request the location of a particular product and receive a personalized message from a database of unique product identifiers on the consumer operated external device detailing the location of said particular product)).
26. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 25, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to illuminate a light associated with the beacon (see: Tanaka: 0030, 0035, 0058, 0071).
Claim(s) 9-10, 20-21 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Tanaka as applied to claim 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Hoffman (US 2002/0178013).
Regarding claim 9, Phillips further discloses providing to the user an application executable on a processor of a mobile computing device (see: Fig. 1 (141), 0028, 0058).
Though teaching the above, Phillips in view of Tanaka does not teach an application configured to display a map, wherein notifying the user of the location of the respective beacon associated with the identified product comprises indicating the location on the map.
To this accord, Hoffman teaches a system to display a map (see: 0006, 0027 (presented to the customer via a display screen), wherein notifying the user of the location of the respective beacon associated with the identified product comprises indicating the location on the map. 0006, 0025, 0027). That is, Hoffman teaches causing location information to be presented to the customer by displaying it on a display screen of a device located at the retail store (see: 0006, 0027 (presented to the customer via a display screen), 0049). The location information presented by Hoffman includes a route map to a location of the product, and may also include an aisle number and/or highlighted notations to indicate the locations of the products within the store (see: 0006, 0025, 0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Phillips to have utilized the known technique for displaying map locations as taught by Hoffman in order to have made the shopping experience of Phillips in view of Tanaka more convenient by guiding the customer along a route to product locations through the portable device, thereby making the shopping experience more convenient by aiding the customer in locating within the store items of interest (see: 0025, 0027, 0043).
10. The method as in claim 1, wherein notifying the user of the location of the respective beacon associated with the identified product comprises providing an indicator on a display of a mobile computing device (see: Hoffman: 0006, 0025, 0027, 0049).
Note: Hoffman discloses indicators such as aisle number, highlighted locations, and/or arrows or walking path routes. The combination would have been obvious for at least the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claims 20-21 and 27, claims 20-21 and 27 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 9-10 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, claims 20-21 are rejected under at least similar rationale discussed above over the combination of Phillips in view Hoffman.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Tanaka as applied to claim 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Wisnewski (US 20230196764).
Regarding claim 28, Phillips in view of Tanaka teaches all of the above including wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to notify the user of the location of the identified beacon on a display of a mobile computing device (see: Phillips: ). The combination, however, does not teach notifying the location via a color-coded indicator on the display of the mobile device (though Tanaka does teach color-coded indicators – e.g., 0058-0059).
To this accord, Wisnewski teaches providing objected location assistance for locating objects of interest including notifying a user the location via a color-coded indicator on the display of the mobile device (see: 0044, 0053, 0057, Fig. 6A-C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Phillips in view of Tanaka to have used the known technique for presenting color-coded notifications on the user device as taught by Wisnewski in order to have made it easier to identify the exact location of a physical object in a timely and efficient manner by reducing search time and effort in actually locating an object of interest (see: Wisnewski: 0001, 0020).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Forester (US 2013/0107042) teaches a shopping system that provides each product of a plurality of products with a single respective beacon of a plurality of beacons (see: Fig. 1A (161-162), 0022, Fig. 3 (304), 0027), and, wherein the product specification comprises one or more features of the product (see: 0022 – e.g., garment of a specific size or color). Forester also teaches illuminating indicators (see: 0020, 0026, 0028, 0030).
Nichols (US 2015/0278897) discloses hangers equipped with LED lights that, based on shopper preferences, light up with a blinking or colored light for those hangers having a clothing article with matching preference (see: 0014, 0058).
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 WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights