DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 15 September 2026.
Claim 1 was previously canceled.
Claims 15-21 are withdrawn.
Claims 2-14 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 21 April 2025, has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
The Applicant has elected Group I, claims 2-14 without traverse, in the claims filed on 15 September 2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-14 recite allowable subject matter for reasons given below, and would be allowable if the claims were amended or re-written to overcome the 101 rejection and claim objections indicated in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites wherein the product is added to a virtual shopping cart while the customer or the person is in the showroom, which appears to be a typographical error. The virtual cart has already been recited in the previous limitations and is recited as a virtual cart. The claim should recite the limitation as wherein the product is added to the [[a]] virtual .
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites a location sending device embedded in a client device of the customer or the person, the location sensing device configured to, which appears to be a typographical error. The claim should be recited a location sensing device embedded in a client device of the customer of the customer or person, the location sensing device configured to.
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.
Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 2-14 are directed to a system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of updating inventory based on customer data. Specifically, representative claim 2 recites the abstract idea of:
a product storage area in a facility that is adapted to store products offered for sale by a merchant;
a showroom that is in the same facility, but separate from the product storage area, the showroom being associated with the merchant, wherein the showroom is adapted to display a subset of products stored in the product storage area, wherein the subset of the products is offered for sale by the merchant;
determine location data associated with a customer or a persona associated with the customer, wherein the location data indicates a proximity of the customer or the person to the product storage area or the showroom;
generate real-time customer data based on the location data; and
update an inventory control system based on the real-time customer data or historical customer data.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 2 recites the abstract idea of updating inventory based on customer data, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 2 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite steps of storing products in a facility that are offered for sale by a merchant, a showroom in the facility that displays a subset of products that are for sale, determining location data of a customer or person associated with the customer that is proximity of the product storage area or the showroom, generating customer data based on the location determined, and updating an inventory control system that is based on the customer data or historical customer data, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 2 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 2 includes additional elements: a proximity sensing mechanism, the proximity sensing mechanism adapted to, a network server in operational communication with the proximity sensing mechanism, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and the one or more processors configured to execute processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer-readable media.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 2 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., updating inventory based on customer data) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the 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). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements a proximity sensing mechanism, the proximity sensing mechanism adapted to, a network server in operational communication with the proximity sensing mechanism, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and the one or more processors configured to execute processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer-readable media recited in independent claim 2 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 2 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 2 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 2 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 2 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 3-14 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 3-14 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional elements of a first client device and a second client device (claims 7 & 10), one or more instructions to one or more client devices (claims 8-9), a virtual cart, a virtual shopping cart, and the virtual cart (claim 10), a location sending device embedding in a client device, a location sending device, the location sensing device, and the network server via an electronic communication protocol, wherein the network server is configured (claim 12), and a plurality of sensors, the network server comprises an operating system in communication with a client device, the plurality of sensors, and the operating system of the network server, wherein the network server is configured (claim 13). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the additional elements in claims 7-10 and 12-13 as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 7-10 and 12-13 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 7-10 and 12-13 considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 11 and 14 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the dependent claims 3-14 are ineligible.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Prior Art Considerations:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding independent claim 2, the features are as follows:
a proximity sensing mechanism, the proximity sensing mechanism adapted to determine location data associated with a customer or a person associated with the customer, wherein the location data indicates proximity of the customer or the person to the product storage area or the showroom,
generate real-time customer data based on the location data, and
generate an inventory control system based on the real-time customer data or historical customer data
The most apposite prior art of record includes Kim, J. (Patent No. US 8,401,914 B1), in view of Su, X. (PGP No. US 2002/0026380 A1), Gordon, S., et al. (PGP No. US 2006/0149640 A1), and Ricci, C., et al. (Patent No. US 8,527,373 B1), to teach a system for order fulfillment.
Kim describes a system for operating a retail store, where the system includes the retail store that is divided into separate areas, including a shopping area where a customer can browse products that are displayed for purchase, and the separate non-customer area, where some products are stored securely that are not displayed in the customer shopping area (Kim, see: Col. 12, ln. 6-16; and see: FIG. 2). Further, Kim describes that a shopper can choose to pick up the product that is not displayed in a designated pick up area, where the shopper can indicate they would like to pick up the product by using their own mobile device, utilize a shopping application, and select the option for pick up (Kim, see: Col. 14, ln. 16-20 and ln. 29-37). Kim also describes the database that includes a comprehensive list of all of the products that are available for purchase in the store, either in the shopping area or in the non-customer storage area, where the database of products is updated periodically (Kim, see: Col. 17, ln. 29-38). Although Kim describes a shopping retail facility that has separated areas for browsing products and also an area to store products that are not displayed, as well as updating the product database, Kim does not disclose that there is a proximity sensing mechanism to detect where the location of the shopper is at in relation to the storage area or the display area, nor does Kim describe that there is an updating of an inventory system based on the location data or history data of the shopper. Kim does not disclose the allowable features indicated above.
The Su describes a retail shopping system, where a plurality of goods are available for purchase and are available in the same facility but can be sold by a collection of sellers (Su, see: paragraphs [0039]-[0040]). Su describes that a product database maintains information of all products available or inventory status regarding the participating sellers of the shopping facility (Kim, see: pargraph [0064]). Kim also describes a server that communicates with a delivery system that can receive requests for delivering products to the shoppers (Su, paragraph [0040] and [0048]). Although Su describes a shopping facility with a plurality of sellers of products, Su does not describe a separate area for storage that is in a same facility, and does not determine a location of the shopper in proximity to the storage area of the showroom, and therefore does not update the system based on the location of the user or user data. Su does not teach the allowable features as mentioned above.
The reference of Gordon also describes a shopping facility that is able to showcase or display a plurality of goods that are available for purchase by a shopper, where the store environment displays a small stock of specific products that a shopper may try on or inspect (Gordon, see: paragraph [0076]). Although Gordon describes the features of displaying a subset of products for shoppers, Gordon does not disclose the allowable features indicated above.
Next, the reference of Ricci describes a warehouse setting for storing products available for shoppers to purchase, where the warehouses are able to ship the products in stock to the facility to stock store shelves in a separate facility, where the local warehouses of Ricci describes storing bulk items that are then shipped to respective stores so that the store will be replenished for display and purchasing for shoppers (Ricci, see: Col. 4, ln. 11-14, 35-37, and 50-52). Although Ricci describes a warehouse setting for storing products that are then provided for specific displays in stores, Ricci does not mention that the storage warehouse and the store are in the same facility, nor does Ricci describe the allowable features indicated above.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, the combination of features of independent claims, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims recite allowable subject matter, as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner notes that the non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled Warehouse Management System with Automated Warehouse and Picking Solution, published on Supply Chain 247 website (2016), documented on PTO-892 form as reference U, and hereinafter referred to as ‘Warehouse’, describes and renders a website that describes an intelligent design for warehouse management, making the design more reliable and faster for pickers once receiving picking orders. The system utilizes automation throughout the facility and logical engineering to create improvements and offer companies growth opportunities when it comes to managing inventory. Although ‘Warehouse’ describes such features, the reference does not disclose or teach the allowable features that are stated above, and does not remedy the deficiencies of the noted prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
