DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed January 16, 2025. Claims 2, 5–9, 11, 13–20, and 22 are amended; claims 10 and 21 are canceled. Currently, claims 2–9, 11–20, and 22 are pending.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claims 5 and 16 for informalities. Accordingly, the previous objection to claims 5 and 16 is withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s Response necessitates a new objection for informalities, and Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 6–7, 9–11, 17–18, and 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 6–7, 9–11, 17–18, and 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s Response necessitates a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
With respect to the previous rejection of claims 2–22 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first asserts that the step for “sending command signals” integrates the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. Examiner disagrees. Upon reconsideration of the claims, Examiner submits that “reconfiguration of the reconfigurable shelving unit by the at least one device” is outside the scope of the claims. More particularly, the recited system of claim 2 includes one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions that cause the computer to send command signals, and the recited device and associated functionality to reconfigure the shelving unit are outside the scope of the claimed system. With respect to method claim 13, the claim does not include any steps for reconfiguring the shelving unit using the device. Instead, the claim recites a step for “sending command signals” without requiring performance of a reconfiguring step. As a result, the step for “sending command signals” amounts to no more than a transmission of data, which is an insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong Two. Accordingly, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant next asserts that the claims represent statutory subject matter because the claimed elements embody improvements in arranging items. Examiner disagrees. Although the claims embody improvements in arranging items, the recited improvements are business improvements that are directed to the abstract idea. Further, Examiner maintains that the claims do not embody any improvements in functioning of the computer or any improvements to other technology for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons as stated above. Accordingly, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained and reasserted below.
With respect to the previous rejection of claims 2–22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered and are persuasive. More particularly, the remarks on pages 9–10 of Applicant’s Response are persuasive. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 2–22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 13 recite elements to “acquire data” and subsequently recite “the acquired data” in the element to “generate”. However, dependent claims 5–9, 11, 16–20, and 22 recite “the data”. In view of the above, Examiner recommends amending claims 2 and 13 to recite “the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2–9, 11–20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 13 recite “the reconfiguration” in the element to “send command signals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
For purposes of examination, claims 2 and 13 are interpreted as reciting “wherein [[the]] reconfiguration of the plurality of items comprises a reconfiguration of the reconfigurable shelving unit”.
In view of the above, claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3–9, 11–12, 14–20, and 22, which depend from claims 2 and 13, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 3–9, 11–12, 14–20, and 22 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2–9, 11–20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 2–9, 11–20, and 22 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 2 recites an abstract idea. Claim 2 includes elements reciting “wherein the facility comprises a plurality of shelving units capable of displaying the plurality of items, wherein at least one of the plurality of shelving units comprises a reconfigurable shelving unit”; and “generate a layout for the facility using the acquired data, wherein the layout includes reconfiguration information for the plurality of items.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to commercial sales activities or behaviors because the elements describe a process for generating a retail store layout. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 2 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 13 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 2. As a result, claim 13 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 2.
Claims 3–9, 11–12, 14–20, and 22 further describe the process for generating a retail store layout and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 3–9, 11–12, 14–20, and 22 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 2 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 2 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computer system, one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a first sensor, a second sensor, at least one device, and elements to “acquire data” and “send command signals”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea; the element to “acquire sensor data” does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and the element to “send command signals” is an insignificant extrasolution activity to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 2 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 13 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 2. As a result, claim 13 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 2.
Claims 8 and 19 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include at least one type of sensor. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the recited types of sensors do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 8 and 19 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 3–7, 9, 11–12, 14–18, 20, and 22 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 3–7, 9, 11–12, 14–18, 20, and 22 depend. As a result, claims 3–7, 9, 11–12, 14–18, 20, and 22 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 2 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 2 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computer system, one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a first sensor, a second sensor, at least one device, and elements to “acquire sensor data” and “send command signals”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea; the element to “acquire sensor data” does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and the element to “send command signals” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which identifies transmitting data as a conventional computer function. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 2 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 13 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 2. As a result, claim 13 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 2.
Claims 8 and 19 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include at least one type of sensor. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the recited types of sensors do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 8 and 19 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 3–7, 9, 11–12, 14–18, 20, and 22 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 3–7, 9, 11–12, 14–18, 20, and 22 depend. As a result, claims 3–7, 9, 11–12, 14–18, 20, and 22 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2–9, 11–20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Neugebauer (U.S. 2006/0163349) discloses a system directed to managing retail promotions using store layout optimization and automated signage (See paragraphs 174–175).
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 S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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 S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623