CTNF 18/983,143 CTNF 74912 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of the USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), which is a two-prong inquiry. In prong 1, it must be determined whether the claim recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon, and if so, in prong 2, it must be determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea in step 2a, it must additionally be determined in step 2b whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. MPEP §2106.04. STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system for guiding a store clerk in collecting items for a customer, as in independent claim 1 and in the claims that depend therefrom. Such systems fall under the statutory category of “apparatus”. Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category. Step 2A, prong 1. The invention is directed to a system for guiding a store clerk in collecting items for a customer, which is a sales method and, hence, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. When considering the limitations individually and as a whole the limitations directed to the abstract idea are: “An in-store guidance system for guiding a store clerk in collecting items for a customer in a store, the system comprising”: “a … configured to receive an input of a request for one or more items”; “a … connectable to the … and configured to, in response to the request received by the …”: “determine item locations at which the requested items are respectively displayed or stored”, “determine a collection order of the requested items such that movement of a store clerk for collecting the items is a minimum, based on a distance between each of the item locations and a destination where the customer receives the items”, “generate first guidance information in which names of the requested items and the item locations are listed in the determined collection order”, and “output the first guidance information”; and “a s… connectable to the … and configured to receive and display the first guidance information that is output by the …”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. a generic computing system performing generic functions including generic processing of data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. MPEP §2106.04. Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the Mayo framework, the examiner holds that the claims are directed to concepts identified as abstract. STEP 2B. Because the claims include one or more abstract ideas, the examiner now proceeds to Step 2B of the analysis, in which the examiner considers if the claims include individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the "computer itself," "another technology," the "technical field," or significantly more than what is "well-understood, routine, or conventional" in the related arts. The instant application includes in claim 1 additional limitations to those deemed to be abstract ideas. When taken individually, these limitations are “customer terminal”; ” server”; and “store clerk terminal”. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to above mentioned abstract idea. Technical functions such as sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology. The individual limitations are recited at a high level and do not provide any specific technology or techniques to perform the functions claimed. Looking to MPEP §2106.05(d), based on court decisions well understood, routine and conventional computer functions or mere instruction and/or insignificant activity have been identified to include: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321,120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TU Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); O/P Techs., /no., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F,3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir, 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPG2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink," (emphasis added)}; Insignificant intermediate or post solution activity -See Bilski v. Kappos, 581 U.S. 593, 611 -12, 95 USPQ2d 1001,1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); In Bilski referring to Flook, where Flook determined that an insignificant post-solution activity does not makes an otherwise patent ineligible claim patent eligible. In Bilski, the court added to Flook that pre-solution (such as data gathering) and insignificant step in the middle of a process (such as receiving user input) to be equally ineffective. The specification and Claim does not provide any specific process with respect to the display output that would transform the function beyond what is well understood. Like as found in Electric Power Group, Bilski, the technical process to implement the input and display functions are conventional and well understood. In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add "significantly more" by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to the abstract idea. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using well-understood and conventional functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine functions for authorizing the timing of a payment and to activate a display screen based on a trigger or camera functions that could then be pointed to as being "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, examiner was not able to identify any "unconventional" steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. Further, note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computing devices. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device and require no more than a generic computing devices to perform generic functions. CONCLUSION. It is therefore determined that the instant application not only represents an abstract idea identified as such based on criteria defined by the Courts and on USPTO examination guidelines, but also lacks the capability to bring about "Improvements to another technology or technical field" (Alice), bring about "Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself" (Alice), "Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" (Bilski), "Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing" (Diehr), "Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field" (Mayo), "Add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (Mayo), or contain "Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" (Alice), transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (McRO), or limitations directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software (Enfish). Dependent claims 2-10, which impose additional limitations, also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. Claim 7 recites a “payment terminal”. Claim 9 recites a “display” and a “touch panel”. These are generic elements. In reference to claims 2-10, these dependent claims have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. The dependent claims have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary." Content Extraction &. Transmission LLC v, Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, applicant is invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Claim 11 is similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claims 2-20 depend from claim 11, are similar to claims 2-10, and are rejected for the same reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0042814 A1 (hereinafter “Shi”) in view of U.S. Patent Number 11,644,315 B2 (hereinafter “Maiolo’) . With respect to claims 1 and 11, Shi discloses “An in-store guidance system for guiding a store clerk in collecting items for a customer in a store, the system comprising”: Shi, abstract; “a customer terminal configured to receive an input of a request for one or more items”; Shi ¶¶ 0039, 0042 (user can enter request into mobile phone); “a server connectable to the customer terminal and configured to, in response to the request received by the customer terminal”: Shi ¶¶ 0039, 0042 (server receives request); “determine item locations at which the requested items are respectively displayed or stored”, Shi ¶¶ 0056, 0057 (locations of items not physically selected by user are determined); “determine a collection order of the requested items …”, Shi ¶¶ 0056, 0057 (items are collected in an order); “generate first guidance information in which names of the requested items and the item locations are listed in the determined collection order”, Shi ¶¶ 0056, 0057 (guidance is provided to user); and “output the first guidance information”; Shi ¶¶ 0042, 0056, 0057 (guidance is provided to user’s mobile phone); and “a store clerk terminal connectable to the server and configured to receive and display the first guidance information that is output by the server”. Shi ¶ 0044 (second device displays information). Shi does not explicitly disclose minimizing the distance traveled by a store clerk. Maiolo discloses “determine a collection order of the requested items such that movement of a store clerk for collecting the items is a minimum, based on a distance between each of the item locations and a destination where the customer receives the items”, Maiolo, abstract, claims 1, 15 (distance traveled between selected objects is minimized). Both Shi and Maiolo relate to items in indoor facilities. Shi, abstract; Maiolo, abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the distance minimization feature as taught by Maiolo in the method of Shi with the motivation of providing access to products in a convenient and cost-effective manner. Maiolo 1:13-51. With respect to claims 2 and 12, claim 1 requires a selection order that minimizes the path distance. In some cases, there is only one such path. Claims 2 and 12 are therefore interpreted to apply only to the selection of an order when multiple orders provide identically minimal path lengths. There are only a limited number of possible solutions that can be utilized (e.g., farthest item first or farthest item last) and one skilled in the art would have understood the advantages and disadvantages of each. Moreover, it would not have affected the implementation of the intention to use any of the possible solutions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try “wherein the server determines the collection order such that an item that is located farthest from the destination is to be collected first”. With respect to claims 3 and 13, claim 1 requires a selection order that minimizes the path distance. In some cases, there is only one such path. Claims 3 and 13 are therefore interpreted to apply only to the selection of an order when multiple orders provide identically minimal path lengths. There are only a limited number of possible solutions that can be utilized (e.g., nearest item first or nearest item last) and one skilled in the art would have understood the advantages and disadvantages of each. Moreover, it would not have affected the implementation of the intention to use any of the possible solutions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try “wherein the server determines the collection order such that an item that is located nearest the destination is to be collected last”. With respect to claims 4 and 14, Shi discloses “wherein the server is further configured to: determine the destination in response to the request, and transmit the determined destination to the customer terminal”. Shi ¶¶ 0039-0043 (destination is selected fitting room). With respect to claims 5 and 15, Shi discloses “wherein the server is further configured to, after receiving the request: acquire a quantity of each of items that are currently displayed on a sales floor in the store, determine whether the quantity of each of the items currently displayed is less than or equal to a predetermined number, and upon determining that the quantity of a first item currently displayed is less than or equal to the predetermined number, include, in the first guidance information: a stock location at which the first item is located, and a display location at which the first item is currently displayed”. Shi ¶¶ 0039, 0042, 0056, 0057 (predetermined quantity is one, system determines location if item is available). With respect to claims 6 and 16, Shi discloses “wherein the server is further configured to determine destinations of the requested items in response to the request, and the first guidance information includes multiple destinations including the destination of the requested items and the destination of the first item”. Shi ¶¶ 0039-0043 (destination is selected fitting room). With respect to claims 7 and 17, Shi discloses “further comprising: a payment terminal installed at the destination where the customer receives the items, connectable to the server, and configured to perform a payment process, wherein the server is further configured to”: Shi ¶¶ 0052,0080 (payment terminal can be user’s mobile phone or other device); “determine one or more of the requested items on which the payment process has not been performed”, Shi ¶¶ 0052,0080 (payment is made for selected items not yet purchased); “determine a return order of the one or more of the requested items …”, Shi ¶¶ 0081, 0083 (items are returned in an order); “generate second guidance information in which names of the one or more of the requested items and the item locations thereof are listed in the return order”, Shi ¶¶ 0081, 0083 (store workers are provided guidance); and “output the second guidance information to the store clerk terminal”. Shi ¶¶ 0081, 0083 (store workers are provided guidance). Maiolo discloses “determine a return order of the one or more of the requested items such that movement of a store clerk for returning the one or more of the requested items is minimum, based on a distance between the destination and each of the item locations of the one or more of the requested items”. Maiolo, abstract, claims 1, 15 (distance traveled between selected objects is minimized). With respect to claims 8 and 18, Shi discloses “wherein the server is further configured to: acquire a quantity of each of items that are currently displayed on a sales floor in the store, determine whether the quantity of each of the items currently displayed is less than or equal to a predetermined number, and upon determining that the quantity of a first item that is currently displayed on the sales floor and one of the requested items on which the payment process has not been performed, is less than or equal to the predetermined number, include, in the second guidance information, a display location of the first item on the sales floor as a destination thereof”. Shi ¶¶ 0039, 0042, 0056, 0057 (predetermined quantity is one, system determines location if item is available). With respect to claims 9 and 19, Shi discloses “wherein the customer terminal includes a mirror, a display, and a touch panel, and is configured to receive a request for trying one or more clothes displayed on the display and selected through the touch panel”. Shi ¶¶ 0075, 0076, 0169 (device has display and touch screen and can function as a mirror). With respect to claims 10 and 20, Shi discloses “wherein the destination is a fitting room in the store”. Shi ¶¶ 0039-0043 (destination is selected fitting room) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Number 9,466,045 B1 (hereinafter “Kumar”) discloses determining an optimal path to minimize distances. Kumar, abstract, claim 1. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0242172 A1 (hereinafter “Chen”) discloses determining an optimal path to minimize distances. Chen ¶ 0081. U.S. Patent Application Publicaiton 2003/0084011 A1 (hereinafter “Shetty”) discloses determining an optimal path to minimize distances. Shetty ¶ 0052. Mohan, Lekshmi, et al., "Navigation of Mobile Robot in a Warehouse Environment", Proceedings of the 2018 Int'l Conf. on Emerging Trends and Innovations in Engineering and Technological Research, 978-1-5836-7/18 (Year: 2018)(hereinafter “Lekshmi”) discloses path planning to determine an optimal path. Lekshmi, abstract. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN D CIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-6:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. ETHAN D. CIVAN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3688 /ETHAN D CIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/983,143 Page 2 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/983,143 Page 3 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/983,143 Page 4 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/983,143 Page 5 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/983,143 Page 6 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/983,143 Page 7 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/983,143 Page 8 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/983,143 Page 9 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/983,143 Page 10 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/983,143 Page 11 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/983,143 Page 12 Art Unit: 3688
Prosecution Insights