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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to directing a customer to items within a physical store, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-11 recite a device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory. Claims 12-15 recite a method with at least one step. Claims 16-20 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (apparatus, process, manufacture).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which a customer is directed to items within a physical store, including through the facilitation of consumer-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
receiving at least one instance of item description data that relates to an item that is determined to be considered for a purchase associated with a shopper entity;
interfacing with a vendor entity that offers products for sale at a physical store location, a representation of the physical store location, comprising store location data for the products offered for sale;
generating shopping list data in response to a matching procedure that iteratively matches respective instances of the at least one instance of the item description data to a product identifier, wherein the product identifier identifies a product of the products for sale at the physical store location; and
performing a navigation procedure that communicates, directions within the physical store location to the product based on the store location
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to perform a navigation procedure to direct a customer to locations in a store containing items considered for purchase by the consumer and between a consumer and business to aid in the consummation of purchases for the items. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising
via an interface,
a server device associated with
wherein the server device comprises a digital twin
a virtual representation
the digital twin, indicative of
retained by the digital twin
via the interface
retained by the digital twin.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“via an interface”, “a server device”, “a digital twin”, “a virtual representation”) and applied to insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving, communicating). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraph 39 and 100-132 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 12 and 16 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-11, 13-15, 17-20
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-15, and 17-20 merely set forth embellishments to the abstract idea of directing a customer to items within a physical store, including facilitating interaction between consumers and businesses. While the claims do set additional limitations, such recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 1, 5-8, 12-13, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 20210358012 A1, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding Claim 1
Liu discloses a device, comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, (Liu: see at least ¶63) comprising:
receiving, via an interface, at least one instance of item description data that relates to an item that is determined to be considered for a purchase associated with a shopper entity; (Liu: see at least ¶29: user interfaces with shopping cart, which received a shopping list of keywords)
interfacing with a server device associated with a vendor entity that offers products for sale at a physical store location, wherein the server device comprises a digital twin, indicative of a virtual representation of the physical store location, the digital twin comprising store location data for the products offered for sale; (Liu: see at least ¶32, 84: shopping list feature generates a map with items in store; shopping list feature implemented by a server that stores store information including information for generating a layout on routing information)
generating shopping list data in response to a matching procedure that iteratively matches respective instances of the at least one instance of the item description data to a product identifier retained by the digital twin, wherein the product identifier identifies a product of the products for sale at the physical store location; (Liu: see at least ¶51, fig. 6B: locations of items in shopping list mapped to specific locations in store in response to user selecting feature to map keywords of the shopping list to the store)
performing a navigation procedure that communicates, via the interface, directions within the physical store location to the product based on the store location retained by the digital twin (Liu: see at least ¶57: user interface generates route to obtain items that correspond to keywords; user may be guided as they shop in store to next item)
Regarding Claim 12 and 16
Claims 12 and 16 are substantially similar to claim 1 and rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claims 5-8, 10, 13, 18, 19
Liu further discloses:
wherein the matching procedure selects from among multiple matching products, of the products, that match the item description data based on at least one of a preference associated with the shopper entity or selection input received from the shopper entity (Liu: see at least ¶32: keywords on shopping list matched to particular products locations in response to user input)
wherein the matching procedure further comprises, in response to identifying an alternative product that differs from the product matched to the item description data, presenting, via the interface, first information about the alternative product and second information about the product (Liu: see at least ¶33-36, 48: system recommend alternative keywords and/or items that are not on user’s shopping list)
wherein the navigation procedure further comprises determining the directions according to at least one of: a shortest distance for the shopping list data, accessibility accommodations available at the physical store location, department associated with the product of the shopping list data, type of the product of the shopping list data, a packing preference for the shopping list data, or a weight or a fragility of the product of the shopping list data. (Liu: see at least ¶32: shortest distance)
wherein the navigation procedure further comprises, prior to communicating the direction, presenting, via the interface, at least one of: a first description of the product; a second description as to why the product was selected in response to the item description data; a third description of access to the product; or a verification request that requests a verification that the directions to the product are to be provided or whether the product is to be changed or removed from the shopping list data. (Liu: see at least fig. 2B: description of product)
wherein the operations further comprise, in response to a point of sale procedure that processes presented products for purchase, determining whether the product is among the presented products (Liu: see at least ¶37, 50: items from shopping list determined to correspond to completed or uncompleted tasks, and moved to respective sections of interface in response to items added to and detected by cart)
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.
3. Claims 2-3, 9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Hopkins (US 20090032590 A1).
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 17
Liu does not explicitly disclose, but Hopkins teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the shopper entity is a person with a vision impairment and the interface is configured to enhance a non-visual aspect of communication to mitigate the vision impairment (Hopkins: see at least abstract)
wherein the item description data is communicated to the interface as a Braille communication or a voice communication. (Hopkins: see at least ¶30-33: audio output includes spoken language)
wherein the directions are communicated to the shopper entity in a tactile manner (Hopkins: see at least ¶34, 46-47: vibrations in handle of cane direct user around obstacles)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Liu, with the features to assist the visually impaired, as taught by Hopkins, since such a modification would have allows blind or visually impaired (B & VI) pedestrians safely to negotiate unfamiliar or known environments. (Hopkins: see ¶34)
4. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Knight et al. (US 20250124238 A1, hereinafter Knight)
Regarding Claim 4
Liu does not explicitly disclose, but Knight teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the matching procedure uses an output from a large language model to match the item description data, as input to the large language model, to the product identifier, as the output (Knight: see at least ¶49)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Liu, with the matching procedure using an LLM, as taught by Knight, since such a modification would have improved on the technical fields of machine-learning models and data analysis by reducing the need to account for different data structures or formats that may change over time (Knight: ¶12).
5. Claims 2-3, 9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kocienda et al. (US 20240310900 A1, hereinafter Kocienda).
Regarding Claims 11, 14, 20
Liu does not explicitly disclose, but Kocienda teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the operations further comprise, in response to the product being determined not to be among the presented products, generating a notification to at least one of the server device or the shopper entity that the product was not presented at point of sale or an incorrect product was presented at the point of sale (Kocienda see at least ¶226-227: user alerted that item is missing from shopping cart)
based on point of sale data, determining, by the device, that the product is a missing product that was not processed during a point of sale transaction and, in response, transmitting, by the device, a first indication of the missing product to at least one of a shopper entity that is part of the point of sale transaction or the vendor entity. (Kocienda see at least ¶226-227: user alerted that item is missing from shopping cart))
6. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Acker, JR. et al. (US 20140214577 A1, hereinafter Acker)
Regarding Claim 15
Liu does not explicitly disclose, but ACker teaches in a similar environment:
based on the point of sale data, the store location data, or other data of the digital twin, determining, by the device that an errant product was collected by the shopper entity instead of the missing product and, in response, transmitting, by the device, a second indication of the errant product to at least one of the shopper entity or the vendor entity (Acker: see at least ¶22: incorrect product may be identified, and error indicated to user)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Liu, with the determination of an errant item, as taught by Acker, since such a modification would have ensured that a customer receives desired items in a checkout process (Acker: ¶22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schack et al. (US 20240037630 A1) discloses a method, computer program product, and system for displaying augmented reality elements for navigating to a location of an item within a warehouse, including planning an efficient route through a retail environment for s hopper to pick up items on their shopping list.
High et al. (US 20230391592 A1) discloses shopping facility assistance systems, devices and methods, including providing maps to guide a user to items on a shopping list throughout a retail store.
“RoboCart: toward robot-assisted navigation of grocery stores by the visually impaired," (PTO-892 Reference U) discloses assisting visually impaired navigating a retail store through providing audio and haptic feedback.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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 Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688