DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Response on 07/14/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending; claims 12-20 are withdrawn; and, claims 1-11 are examined below. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 04/30/2025.
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 .
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 1-11 are system/machine claims. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Exemplary claim 1 recites the following abstract idea of system for detecting and responding to planogram voids in a retail store, the system comprising:
an analytic device including a processor and a communications module, wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions that causes the analytic device to perform operations comprising (See Step 2A Prong 2)):
receiving, over the communications module by an input data receipt module of the analytic device, scan data for a particular retail store (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Elec. Power Grp.),
determining, based on applying a rule-based engine to process the scan data, whether a product on a planogram for the particular retail store is selling less than a threshold quantity of units within a predefined timeframe (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Elec. Power Grp.),
automatically generating, by an alert criteria module of the analytic device and in response to determining that the product on the planogram is selling less than the threshold quantity of units within the predefined timeframe, a planogram (POG) void alert to be presented on a user interface of a display that is communicatively connected to the analytic device, wherein the display comprises an input/output (1/O) subsystem having input/output control hubs, wherein the POG void alert is generated based on a type of the product, a geographic region associated with the planogram, and a velocity at which the product is sold over a historic period of time (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)(citing IV I LLC, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. 792 F.3d. at 1367, 115 USPQ2d at 1639-40. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)”, which “is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods of organizing human activity.” 792 F.3d. at 1367-68, 115 USPQ2d at 1640.),
ranking the POG void alert in a list of alerts based on determining a combination of priority, severity, and urgency of the POG void alert relative to other alerts in the list of alerts, wherein the other alerts in the list of alerts comprise other POG void alerts for products that (i) do not have scan sales within one or more periods of time or (ii) have on-hand inventory over other periods of time (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B)),
selecting a top ranked alert from the list of alerts that comprises a combination of highest priority, highest severity, and highest urgency compared to a lower ranked alert in the list of alerts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B)),
transmitting, over the communications module, instructions to an alert receipt module of the display to cause the display, using the input/output control hubs of the I/O subsystem of the display (see Step 2A, Prong 2; Step 2B), to automatically output (see Step 2A, Prong 2; Step 2B) the top ranked alert and at least one predefined resolution action that is configured to automatically resolve the top ranked alert (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B)),
automatically initiating the at least one predefined resolution action to automatically resolve the top ranked alert, wherein automatically initiating the at least one predefined resolution action comprises adding a threshold quantity of the product associated with the top ranked alert to an upcoming order delivery for the particular retail store (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B)),
continuously receiving, from a user resolution input detection module that is communicatively coupled to the display and in a feedback loop, scanned identifiers of products in the particular retail store (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Elec. Power Grp; see Step 2B),
determining, based on the continuously received scanned identifiers in the feedback loop, whether any of the scanned identifiers of the products correspond to the product associated with the top ranked alert (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Elec. Power Grp.), and
based on a determination that at least one of the scanned identifiers of the products corresponds to the product associated with the top ranked alert, deactivating the top ranked alert (see Step 2A Prong 2; Step 2B).
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, the limitations identified above are found to recite abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Exemplary claim 1 is not found to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The additional elements in claim 1 are an analytic device including a processor and a communications module that is configured to perform the abstract idea; the automating limitation(s); and the deactivating the top ranked alert.
For the claimed analytic device, see MPEP 2106.05(f) apply it rationale.
For the automation aspects, see MPEP 2106.05(a) iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
For the “deactivating the top ranked alert,” the examiner refers to Applicant’s Specification at e.g. [0094] and [0097]. Here, Applicant describes that deactivating is another word for clearing the alert. See Spec [0094] “The analytic device 104 processes the received user input and either clears (e.g., deactivates) the alert, continues monitoring the alert until further action is taken, or automatically initiates one or more actions based on the received user input.” The examiner finds that clearing an alert, or deleting an alert, without any disclosure that this clearing is an improvement in the art, the examiner does not find this to be an technical improvement to a technical problem. See also Step 2B.
For the outputting limitations, see MPEP 2106.05(g). (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:
Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:
i. Limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937;
ii. Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55;
iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
iv. Requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.
When these limitations are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner does not find these additional elements to be an improvement in the art, or integrate the underlying abstract idea into practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B – Exemplary claim 1 is not found to include significantly more. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
For the limitations relating to receiving and transmitting data, this has been found to be WURC. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For the limitations relating to performing repetitive calculations/receiving, this has been found to be WURC. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii).
For the limitations relating to scanning and extracting, this has been found to be WURC. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
When these limitations are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds claim 1 to be directed to abstract idea.
Dependent Claims – Claim 2 recites more abstract idea performed without improvement to technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Claim 3 recites more abstract idea performed without practical application, with WURC activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), (iv), (v), etc. Claim 4 more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claim 5 more abstract idea. See eg. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). Claim 6 recites more abstract idea in “apply It” manner. See e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III); Recentive v. Fox, Fed. Cir. Claim 7 recites more abstract idea performed using apply it and WURC activities, as found above. Claim 8 recites more abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claim 9-10 recites “apply it” manner additional limitations. Claim 11 is more abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No 20250307765 to Kampe et al. (“Kampe”) in view of US Pat Pub No 2019/0102469 to Makovsky et al. (“Makovsky”).
With regard to claim 1, Kampe discloses the claimed system for detecting and responding to planogram voids in a retail store, the system comprising:
an analytic device including a processor and a communications module, wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions that causes the analytic device to perform operations comprising (Kampe, e.g. [0041]):
receiving, over the communications module by an input data receipt module of the analytic device, scan data for a particular retail store (Kampe, e.g. [0029] [0039]),
determining, based on applying a rule-based engine to process the scan data, whether a product on a planogram for the particular retail store is selling less than a threshold quantity of units within a predefined timeframe (Kampe e.g. [0026] a plurality of rule-based engines configured to continuously monitor inventory and sales data, generate alerts when certain conditions with respect to inventory and sale data have been met, initiate automatic resolution of the alert if the alert is not resolved by the field personnel within a predefined period, and confirm that the alert conditions have been cleared following application of the resolution actions. In other words, the automated in-store execution issue resolution system 100 establishes a comprehensive set of tasks and procedures applicable to resolve a variety of in-store execution issues.; Kampe [0029] [0035] describes POG voids based on daily scan data identifying items on the planogram that are not selling at least one unit within a predefined time period),
automatically generating, by an alert criteria module of the analytic device and in response to determining that the product on the planogram is selling less than the threshold quantity of units within the predefined timeframe, a planogram (POG) void alert to be presented on a user interface of a display that is communicatively connected to the analytic device, wherein the display comprises an input/output (1/O) subsystem having input/output control hubs, wherein the POG void alert is generated based on a type of the product, a geographic region associated with the planogram, and a velocity at which the product is sold over a historic period of time (Kampe e.g. abstract [0005-7] [0026-40] etc., generates POG void alerts when products lack scan sales and have on-hand inventory, see Kampe [0047] [0062-65] handheld field devices and displays, etc., Kampe [0029] velocity, product types, geographic regions),
ranking the POG void alert in a list of alerts based on determining a combination of priority, severity, and urgency of the POG void alert relative to other alerts in the list of alerts, wherein the other alerts in the list of alerts comprise other POG void alerts for products that (i) do not have scan sales within one or more periods of time or (ii) have on-hand inventory over other periods of time (Kampe, [0005] Alerts may be ranked by priority, severity, and urgency and may be set when one or more conditions within one or more criteria (e.g., sets of conditions) have been met. Criteria and conditions for setting the alerts may vary geographically and/or temporally and may evolve over time with application of machine learning training datasets and other automated and manual tools; Kampe, [0005] Alerts may be ranked by priority, severity, and urgency and may be set when one or more conditions within one or more criteria (e.g., sets of conditions) have been met. Criteria and conditions for setting the alerts may vary geographically and/or temporally and may evolve over time with application of machine learning training datasets and other automated and manual tools.; see also secondary reference, Makovsky, abstract, these alerts may be ranked according to a ‘smart priority’ calculation. The ‘smart priority’ calculation may take into account a number of factors related to given alert, e.g.: severity level, business criticality level, role, number of affected system components, types of affected system components, etc. These factors may be combined in the ‘smart priority’ calculation in a hierarchical fashion, e.g., based on a predetermined (or user-customized ranking) of the importance and/or weighting of the various factors. By seeing the historical and status metadata information relating to the alerts, users may more quickly understand which alerts to address first—and what possible solutions may be employed in order to close out the open alerts in the system.),
selecting a top ranked alert from the list of alerts that comprises a combination of highest priority, highest severity, and highest urgency compared to a lower ranked alert in the list of alerts (Kampe does not disclose this limitation. Makovsky teaches [0058-61] [0064-65] currently selected alert based on the smart priority score and other relevant factors weightings.),
transmitting, over the communications module, instructions to an alert receipt module of the display to cause the display, using the input/output control hubs of the I/O subsystem of the display, to automatically output the top ranked alert and at least one predefined resolution action that is configured to automatically resolve the top ranked alert (Kampe e.g. [0033] displays alerts and action selections on the field device and presents only relevant alerts to the specific field worker, Kampe published claim 3, alert includes at least resolution to the alert; Kampe does not disclose outputting the top ranked alert. Makovsky [0007] [0009] [0029] [0050] further teaches displaying the most critical alerts first),
automatically initiating the at least one predefined resolution action to automatically resolve the top ranked alert, wherein automatically initiating the at least one predefined resolution action comprises adding a threshold quantity of the product associated with the top ranked alert to an upcoming order delivery for the particular retail store (Kampe e.g. [0006], [0026-27] [0035] etc.),
continuously receiving, from a user resolution input detection module that is communicatively coupled to the display and in a feedback loop, scanned identifiers of products in the particular retail store (Kampe [0041], [0029] etc., the feedback loop is e.g. “daily scan data” is received),
determining, based on the continuously received scanned identifiers in the feedback loop, whether any of the scanned identifiers of the products correspond to the product associated with the top ranked alert (Kampe, e.g. abstract, where the conditions are of alert are resolved by the actions, and causes the conditions to clear), and
based on a determination that at least one of the scanned identifiers of the products corresponds to the product associated with the top ranked alert, deactivating the top ranked alert (Kampe, abstract, conditions are matched and cleared relative to before when initiated, and then deactivate the alert “in response to detecting that initiating the at least one action caused the one or more conditions to clear”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the alert resolution art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kampe to include such ability to select the top ranked alert, as shown in Makovsky, where this is beneficial in that “users may more quickly understand which alerts to address first—and what possible solutions may be employed in order to close out the open alerts in the system.” Makovsky, abstract, [0029] etc.
With regard to claim 2, Kampe further discloses wherein the operations further comprise responsive to deactivating the top ranked alert, transmitting, over the communications module, instructions to the alert receipt module of the display to cause the display to remove the top ranked alert from presentation on the user interface (Kampe, receives alert, deactiving alert at e.g. abstract, [0062] Upon determining that one or more criteria for setting an alert has been met, the alert criteria module 508 causes the field device 320 to update information rendered on the display 608, as discussed in more detail below.. Kampe does not disclose remove the top ranked alert from presentation. See Makovsky at e.g. Fig. 4A, where the alerts go from different states, and when goingfrom active/pending to closed, this is removing the active alert and creating a closed alert status. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the alert resolution art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kampe to include such ability to select the top ranked alert, as shown in Makovsky, where this is beneficial in that “users may more quickly understand which alerts to address first—and what possible solutions may be employed in order to close out the open alerts in the system.” Makovsky, abstract, [0029] etc. ).
With regard to claim 3, Kampe discloses the operations further comprise transmitting instructions to the alert receipt module of the display to cause the display to continue to present the top ranked alert on the user interface until a determination is made that the at least one of the scanned identifiers of the products corresponds to the product associated with the top ranked alert (Kampe e.g. [0074] [0083-90] teaches keep the alert active until scan/sales activity indicates the POG void condition has been resolved).
With regard to claim 4, Kampe further discloses where the predefined timeframe, the historic period of time, the one or more periods of time, and the other periods of time are each determined independently based on types of associated products, geographic regions where the associated products are sold, and velocities at which the associated products are sold (Kampe above teaches product specific scan/sales condition + predefined threshold/timeframe + geographic/store context + rule-based alert criteria. To the extent that Kampe does not describe the “independently determined” for each factor, it would have been obvious to configure Kampe’s predefined alert criteria independently by product type, geography, and sales velocity because Kampe already teaches rule-based alert generation using product-specifc scan thresholds and geographic filtering, and indepenetly tuning thohse alert criteria would predictable result false positives and ensure that alerts reflect local demand and product movement rates, if desired. Further, this is a desigh choice for the independently determined aspect of the claim, as an engineer would understand that these could be calculated independently from certain datapoints, if desired.).
With regard to claim 5, Kampe further discloses the operations further comprise identifying an image of a product associated with the top ranked alert based on executing cognitive services of a trained artificial intelligence (Al) model (Kampe [0034] The rule-based engine of the automated in-store execution issue resolution system 100 may be configured to execute cognitive services based on artificial intelligence and machine learning to search graphic data indicative of a retail planogram to identify an image of a product associated with a given in-store execution issue alert. The automated in-store execution issue resolution system 100 is configured to present the identified image of the product to a member of the field issue resolution team. Additionally or alternatively, the automated in-store execution issue resolution system 100 presents to the member of the field team an illustration indicating shelf placement of the product associated with the alert.)
With regard to claim 6, Kampe further discloses the Al model is trained to search graphic data of a retail planogram to identify images of products associated with different in-store execution issue alerts (Kampe [0034]).
With regard to claim 7, Kampe further discloses the operations further comprise transmitting, over the communications module, instructions to the alert receipt module of the display to cause the display, using the input/output control hubs of the I/O subsystem of the display, to automatically output the top ranked alert and the identified image of the product associated with the top ranked alert in the same user interface (see Kampe, cited above. Kampe discloses the product-image presentation concept, rule-based engine may execute cognitive services based on AI ML to search graphic planogram data and identify an image of the product associated with an in-store issue alert, and presenting the identified product image or illustration of shelf placement to the field issue resolution team with handheld device(s). Kampe does not tie it to a top-ranked alert. This is why the secondary reference, Makovsky was brought in above. See Makovsky, regarding claim 1 and combination above).
With regard to claim 8, Kampe further discloses the operations further comprise: detecting, based on applying the rule-based engine to process the scan data, at least one of a promotional execution, a product of a cooler, a health and maintenance parameter of the cooler, phantom inventory, a distribution void,customer service, a display placement, an in-stock and online grocery fill rate, an on-shelf customer availability, an out-of-stock condition, or an increased sales opportunity, and automatically generating, by the alert criteria module of the analytic device and in response to the detecting, a corresponding alert to be ranked in the list of alerts (Kampe e.g. Fig. 9B and text).
With regard to claim 9, Kampe further discloses where the analytic device comprises an edge device deployed on the particular retail store (Kampe e.g. [0033] handheld device or smartphone of the in-store field agent who services the store).
With regard to claim 10, Kampe further discloses the analytic device is the user resolution input detection module (Kampe [0068]).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kampe in view of Makovsky in view of US Pat Pub 2019/0236531 to Adato et al. (“Adato”).
With regard to claim 11, Kampe further discloses where the rule-based engine is configured to access graphic data representative of the planogram for the particular store (Kampe [0028] At least one rule-based engine of the automated in-store execution issue resolution system 100 is configured to access graphic data representative of a planogram of one retail store or several retail stores.) and compare the scan data to the graphic data representative of the planogram to determine that the product on the planogram is selling less than the threshold quantity of units within the predefined timeframe (Kampe does not explicitly disclose this limitation. Kampe discloses that the generates POD void alerts for products that have not had scans within a predefined period of time. Kampe further states that the time periods may be applied based on product type, retailer, geographic region, and that alerts may be based on the product’s normal sales velocity. Kampe’s system also discloses the relevant data architecture, planogram database 208, store product scan reported database 214, and store perpetual inventory database 216, with data provided to the analytic device. Kampe does not explicitly disclose “compare the scan data to the graphic data representative of the planogram.” See Adato e.g. [0045] where comparing scanned image data to the planogram is performed, and throughout Adato. This shows that comparing data to the planogram can be performed. The data of Kampe could easily be used to compare against the planogram, as shown in Adato, where the benefit includes that the “server 135 may identify which products are available on the shelf and output device 145D may present to user 120 an updated list of products.).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the POG art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kampe to include the ability to compare data against the planogram data, as shown in Adato, where the benefit includes that the “server 135 may identify which products are available on the shelf and output device 145D may present to user 120 an updated list of products.).” Adato, e.g. [0127].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights