DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to the application filed April 8th, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/14/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, 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, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. 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.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (system), 8 (method), and 15 (non-transitory computer-readable medium) and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine), claim 8 is directed to a method (i.e. process), and claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite planogram planning, comprising: retrieving, by an instruction builder of a server comprising a processor and memory, a planogram from planogram data to create an instruction set from instruction blocks; interpreting, by a planogram execution engine of a server, the instruction set to data comprising instructions, actions, graphics and an interactive planogram associated with completing one or more tasks; receiving and displaying, by a mobile device, at least a first part of the data from the interpreted instruction set; and receiving and displaying, by a digital display, at least a second part of the data from the interpreted instruction set, wherein the digital display is further configured to display the second part of the data in synchronization with the first part of the data (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are planning planograms by interpreting the instruction set to data comprising instructions, actions, graphics, and an interactive planogram associated with completing one or more tasks, which is managing personal behavior. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are planning planograms, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are planning planograms by interpreting the instruction set to data comprising instructions, actions, graphics, and an interactive planogram associated with completing one or more tasks, which is an observation, judgment, evaluation, and opinion of the human mind. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are planning planograms, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the instruction block; the interactive planogram, the instruction builder; including the detection of an execution device and altering of display size. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior as well as mental process. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “retrieving, by an instruction builder of a server comprising a processor and memory, a planogram from planogram data to create an instruction set from instruction blocks; receiving and displaying, by a mobile device, at least a first part of the data from the interpreted instruction set; and receiving and displaying, by a digital display, at least a second part of the data from the interpreted instruction set, wherein the digital display is further configured to display the second part of the data in synchronization with the first part of the data” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A system of planogram planning, comprising: a server comprising a processor and a memory, the server comprising an instruction builder, a planogram execution engine, a mobile device and a digital display; A computer; A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising planogram planning software” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea.
The claimed “A system of planogram planning, comprising: a server comprising a processor and a memory, the server comprising an instruction builder, a planogram execution engine, a mobile device and a digital display; A computer; A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising planogram planning software” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 8-14; system claims 1-7; and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 15-20 recite “A system of planogram planning, comprising: a server comprising a processor and a memory, the server comprising an instruction builder, a planogram execution engine, a mobile device and a digital display; A computer; A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising planogram planning software”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs [0032], [0034], and [0037] and Figures 1-3. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Also, the above “retrieving, by an instruction builder of a server comprising a processor and memory, a planogram from planogram data to create an instruction set from instruction blocks; receiving and displaying, by a mobile device, at least a first part of the data from the interpreted instruction set; and receiving and displaying, by a digital display, at least a second part of the data from the interpreted instruction set, wherein the digital display is further configured to display the second part of the data in synchronization with the first part of the data” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Next, when the “display the second part of the data in synchronization with the first part of the data” is evaluated as an additional element, this feature is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses well-understood, routine, and conventional prior art activity. See, e.g., Ozeki et al., US 2008/0306766 A1, noting in paragraph [0006] that “in the conventional techniques, except the ECG gated examination etc., in the case of executing a plurality of examinations in parallel, it is only possible to synchronize and display examination data of the plurality of examinations.” Accordingly, the synchronization of display data does not add significantly more to the claim. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (U.S 2015/0088703 A1) in view of Nykamp (U.S 2005/0251462 A1).
Claims 1, 8, and 15
Regarding Claim 1, Yan discloses the following:
A system of planogram planning, comprising [see at least Paragraph 0003 for reference to systems, methods, and devices for generating and distributing graphic representations of planograms; Paragraph 0026 for reference to systems, devices, and methods for generating and distributing graphic representations of planograms that may be overlaid or superimposed onto captured images of real world physical locations (e.g., images of actual retail displays and advertising spaces); Figure 1B and related text regarding a system for generating and distributing graphic representations of planograms; Figure 11 and related text regarding the block diagram of computer systems that can be used to implement various embodiments of the present disclosure]
a server comprising a processor and a memory, the server comprising an instruction builder, a planogram execution engine, a mobile device and a digital display [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to the planogram cloud 150 may include multiple computer systems (e.g., computer servers, business systems, etc.) implementing various functionalities in combinations of hardware, firmware, and software; Paragraph 0032 for reference to the planogram cloud 150 may include at least one computer system executing a planogram engine that includes functionality for designing planograms 100 and generating corresponding graphic representations of the planograms, according to merchandising and advertising agreements, and input received from client computing devices; Paragraph 0033 for reference to client computing devices 140 may also be used to define a planogram using graphic representations (e.g., images or icons) of objects that are manually placed and arranged over an image of a particular location; Paragraph 0066 for reference to the planogram editor 531 may include functionality for both generating new planograms and editing or updating existing planograms; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 530 ‘planogram engine’ and item 531 ‘planogram editor’]
wherein the instruction builder is configured to: retrieve a planogram from planogram data to create an instruction set from instruction blocks [see at least Paragraph 0076 for reference to the planogram engine 530 may retrieve a previously stored planogram data file from the planogram data store; Paragraph 0097 for reference to the planogram engine generating a graphic representation of the corresponding planogram and sent it to the tablet computer; Paragraph 0100 for reference to planogram engine 530 may retrieve the corresponding planogram associated with the location identifier, generate the graphic representation of the planogram, and then compare the graphic representation with the image of the location; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 530 ‘planogram engine’; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 110 ‘physical location’ box displayed in the client computing device in the GUI; Figures 7-9 and related text regarding the rendered graphic representation of the planogram; Examiner notes item 110 location box in Figure 6 as an example of an instruction block]
wherein the planogram execution engine is configured to: interpret the instruction set to data comprising instructions, actions, graphics and an interactive planogram associated with completing one or more tasks [see at least Paragraph 0066 for reference to the planogram editor 531 may include functionality for both generating new planograms and editing or updating existing planograms; Paragraph 0067 for reference to the user interface 313 may receive information from the planogram editor 531 that provides a user with a GUI that includes controls for capturing an image of a physical location 110 using the camera module 311 of the client computing device; Paragraph 0077 for reference to planogram editor 531 may change, edit, or generate a new or augmented planogram data file based on user input; Paragraph 0100 for reference to planogram engine 530 may retrieve the corresponding planogram associated with the location identifier, generate the graphic representation of the planogram, and then compare the graphic representation with the image of the location; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 530 ‘planogram engine’ and item 531 ‘planogram editor’]
wherein the mobile device is configured to: receive and display at least a first part of the data from the interpreted instruction set [see at least Paragraph 0067 for reference to provide the a user of a client computing device 140 the tools to generate new or edit existing planograms, the planogram editor 531 may include a connection for interfacing with the UI 313 in the client computing device; Paragraph 0077 for reference to graphic representation may then be displayed in a GUI on client computing device; Paragraph 0088 for reference to the graphic representation may include a static image that may be sent to the client computing device; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 140 ‘client computing device’]
wherein the digital display is configured to: receive and display at least a second part of the data from the interpreted instruction set [see at least Paragraph 0033 for reference to client computing device may display the image to the user in a graphical user interface that allows a user to select and arrange (e.g., drag-and-drop) various graphic representations of products and advertisements into the image to design the desired visual appearance of the location and then generate a corresponding conventional or proprietary schematic planogram; Figure 2 and related text regarding a graphic representation of a planogram that may be displayed on a user interface; Paragraph 0067 for reference to the user interface 313 may receive information from the planogram editor 531 that provides a user with a GUI that includes controls for capturing an image of a physical location 110 using the camera module 311 of the client computing device; Figure 3A and related text regarding item 313 ‘user interface device’]
While Yan discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein the digital display is further configured to display the second part of the data in synchronization with the first part of the data.
However, Nykamp discloses the following:
wherein the digital display is further configured to display the second part of the data in synchronization with the first part of the data [see at least Paragraph 0012 for reference to the display or playback of the product data on the consumer and attendant computers is synchronized; Paragraph 0083 for reference to during an interactive information session, the displays in the consumer display window 170 and the attendant display window 190 are generally synchronized; Figures 5 & 6 and related text illustrating methods used to synchronize the display of information on the consumer and attendant display windows]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the planogram planning system of Yan to include the synchronized display of Nykamp. The display or playback of product data is generally synchronized so that each person can see the same information and hearing or read the same interactive discussion at essentially the same time, as stated by Nykamp (Paragraph 0022).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 8, Yan teaches a computer-implemented method of planogram planning [Paragraph 0003 & Fig 10]. Regarding claim 15, Yan teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising planogram planning software [Paragraphs 0010-11, 0107]. Therefore, claims 8 and 15 are rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Yan and Nykamp.
Claims 3, 10, and 17
While the combination of Yan and Nykamp disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 3, Yan discloses the following:
wherein each instruction block provides for creating an interactive planogram that links different portions of the planogram with various instruction blocks [see at least Paragraph 0097 for reference to tablet computer 140 may then send the location identifier along with the request for a compliance check or stocking instructions to the planogram engine; Paragraph 0101 for reference to indications 915 shown in FIG. 9 include bolded outlines superimposed over areas in the location 810 that need to be restocked or that are otherwise not in compliance with the associated planogram; Paragraph 0104 for reference to indications for changes may include symbols or color coding for instructing a user to remove a particular object 830 from the location 810 because it will be moved to another location according to the specifications of another planogram; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 110 ‘physical location’ box displayed in the client computing device in the GUI; Figures 7-9 and related text regarding the rendered graphic representation of the planogram; Examiner notes item 110 location box in Figure 6 as an example of an instruction block]
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4, 11, and 18
While the combination of Yan and Nykamp disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 4, Yan discloses the following:
wherein the interactive planogram is tailored for a particular retail location [see at least Paragraph 0036 for reference to a planogram may include location data (e.g., coordinates or location identifiers), validity time periods, product identifiers, advertising identifiers, and the like; Paragraph 0046 for reference to based on the location identifier, and other contextual details, the corresponding complete planogram 100 may be identified; Paragraph 0076 for reference to the request for a specific planogram data file may include an associated location identifier and/or a timestamp or time identifier; Paragraph 0100 for reference to the planogram engine 530 may retrieve the corresponding planogram associated with the location identifier]
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5, 12, and 19
While the combination of Yan and Nykamp disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 5, Yan discloses the following:
wherein the interactive planogram is linked to one or more of: product information, current inventory and images of a product [see at least Paragraph 0036 for reference to a planogram may include location data (e.g., coordinates or location identifiers), validity time periods, product identifiers, advertising identifiers, and the like; Paragraph 0036 for reference to a planogram may include the specifications for the arrangement of multiple products on a particular shelf in a particular store for some specific period of time; Paragraph 0059 for reference to indications can include graphic representations of each object (i.e., images of products and signs) having differentiating outlines, highlights, blinking elements, arrows, and the like, to indicate which and how objects should be altered to bring the location 110 into compliance with the applicable planogram; Paragraph 0099 for reference to the graphic representation 711 of the planogram may include transparent renderings of icons that represent the products 630 through which the image of location 110 can still be seen]
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6, 13, and 20
While the combination of Yan and Nykamp disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 6, Yan discloses the following:
wherein the instruction builder supports multiple devices for task execution [see at least Paragraph 0033 for reference to a client computing device 140, such as camera equipped tablet computer 140-1 or smart phone 140-3, may be used to capture an image of a particular location; Paragraph 0036 for reference to planogram data file may be uploaded to the planogram cloud 150 and distributed to and used by multiple consuming client computing devices, such as tablet computer 140-5, smartphone 140-7, or augmented-reality viewing devices, such as display glasses; Paragraph 0062 for reference to System 500 may also include one or more client computing devices 310 executing a client application for communicating with the business system 520 and the planogram engine 530 over communication connection]
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14
While the combination of Yan and Nykamp disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 7, Yan discloses the following:
wherein the instruction builder detects a device on which it is being executed and automatically alters a display size and interface options based on the detected device [see at least Paragraph 0036 for reference to arrangement of the products on the shelf may be associated with scalable images that can be used by the client computing device to overlay a graphical representation of the arrangement on top of a real-world and/or real-time image of the corresponding shelf; Paragraph 0081 for reference to scaling and perspective of the images of the objects within a particular graphic representation of a planogram can be altered to match the perspective of the image of the location automatically]
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 7.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (U.S 2015/0088703 A1) in view of Nykamp (U.S 2005/0251462 A1), as applied in claims 1, 8, and 15, in view of Raskin (U.S 2013/0006790 A1).
Claims 2, 9, and 16
While the combination of Yan and Nykamp disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein a question instruction block of the instruction blocks comprises a predefined content placeholder to insert a question into the instruction set.
Regarding Claim 2, Raskin discloses the following:
wherein a question instruction block of the instruction blocks comprises a predefined content placeholder to insert a question into the instruction set [see at least Paragraph 0170 for reference to note can include any information or special instructions that the creator of the floor map chooses to provide to the store employees; Paragraph 0170 for reference to the employee can note whether a particular fixture is attracting significant crowds, how long customers are staying around a given fixture, traffic-flow problems, specific questions that are frequently asked by customers, or the like; Paragraph 0171 for reference to Notes can also be added during the design phase of the interactive floor map wherein notes for a product set can include instructions regarding in which fixture block the product set is to be placed or any other information related to the product set that the floor map designer wants to convey; Paragraph 0173 for reference to Notes for a fixture block can include information such as type of fixture block, where the fixture block is to be placed in each floor map, etc.; Figure 29 and related text regarding notes that can be associated with an element of a floor map]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the instruction set of Yan to include the notes questioning of Raskin. Doing so floor maps and/or product information can be altered based on feedback from employees at various stores, as stated by Raskin (Paragraph 0170).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bianchi-Aguiar, Teresa, et al. "Using analytics to enhance a food retailer’s shelf-space management." Interfaces 46.5 (2016): 424-444.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
EP3447698A1
Hendrickson et al.
Planogram implementation
US 2009/0288030 A1
Wahl et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TASK ARRANGEMENT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights