DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicants application filing received on August 12, 2025. Claim(s) 1-39 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application is a continuation of U.S. patent application 17/955,983 filed on September 29, 2022, now U.S. Patent 12,412,186, which claims priority to U.S. provisional application 63/303,891 filed on January 27, 2022.
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 Examiner acknowledges the Applicants filing of IDS references on November 28, 2025, and April 30, 2026. The references have been considered at this time. A copy of the annotated IDS sheet is included in this correspondence.
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 1-39 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.
Claims 1-39 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is an apparatus, a product, and a method of configuring product segmentation which is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 27 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent apparatus Claim 14 and product Claim 1. Claim 27 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Generating product hierarchy, calculating impact values, calculating and generating weight factors, and providing store shelf arrangement instructions recites a commercial interaction and managing personal behavior. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The apparatus to facilitate efficient arrangement using a processor, FPGA or ASIC in Claim 14 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions in Claim 1 appears to be just software. Claims X and Z are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Processes”. Generating product hierarchy, calculating impact values, calculating and generating weight factors, and providing store shelf arrangement instructions recites a concept performed in the human mind. But for the “processor circuitry” language (claim 14), the claims encompass a user Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The apparatus to facilitate efficient arrangement using a processor, FPGA or ASIC in Claim 14 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions in Claim 1 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 14 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions (Claim 1) an interface, a processor or GPU (claim 14) and/or [no claimed computer hardware elements] (Claim 27). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 14, and 27 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0115] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [The processor platform 1100 can be, for example, a server, a personal computer, a workstation, a self-learning machine (e.g., a neural network), a mobile device (e.g., a cell phone, a smart phone, a tablet such as an iPad), a personal digital assistant (PDA), an Internet appliance, a DVD player, a CD player, a digital video recorder, a Blu-ray player, a gaming console, a personal video recorder, a set top box, a headset (e.g., an augmented reality (AR) headset, a virtual reality (VR) headset, etc.) or other wearable device, or any other type of computing device.] and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 14, and 27 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-13, 15-26, and 28-39 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 14, and 27 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Claims 2,6 and 13 are drawn to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) 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);
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(d) II. ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
Claim 5 can be equated to MPEP 2106.05(d) II. iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Claim 6 is covered by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim 9 and 12 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Dependent sets 15-26 and 28-39 are similar or identical to claims 2-13 and are rejected in the same manner.
Therefore, the claims 2-13, 15-26, and 28-39 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-39 are not patent-eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,186. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming the same invention.
Claim 1 can be drawn to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,186; specifically, At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions to cause at least one processor circuit to at least:
generate a first item hierarchy structure based on item information, the first item hierarchy structure having a parent category and first sub-categories;
generate a second item hierarchy structure based on the item information, the second item hierarchy structure having the parent category and second sub-categories different than the first sub-categories;
determine sub-category impact values for items in the first and second item hierarchy structures;
determine average impact values for the first and second item hierarchy structures using the sub-category impact values;
determine first weighting factors for ones of the items based on a comparison between the sub-category impact values and the average impact values;
generate item relationship matrices for the first and second item hierarchy structures, respective ones of the item relationship matrices including the sub-category impact values modified by (a) second weighting factors associated with respective ones of the items in the first and second item hierarchy structures and (b) sales data;
determine a confidence metric for final weighted categorical impact values, the final weighted categorical impact values corresponding to items in the first and second item hierarchy structures and determined based on (a) the first weighting factors (b) the second weighting factors, and (c) the modified sub-category impact values;
generate blended categorical impact values based on (a) average values of the final weighted categorical impact values across the first and second item hierarchy structures and (b) the confidence metric of respective ones of the final weighted categorical impact values;
select ones of the blended categorical impact values associated with response criteria corresponding to an item impact query, the selection of blended categorical impact values to form a query result that identifies, with a graphical user interface, impact metrics associated with items of the item impact query; and
add ones of the items to a store shelf based on the impact metrics.
Claims 2 and 3 can be drawn to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,186.
Claim 4 can be drawn to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,186.
Claim 5 can be drawn to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,186.
Claim 6 can be drawn to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,186.
Claim 7 can be drawn to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,186.
Claim 8 can be drawn to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,186.
Claim 9 can be drawn to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,186.
Claim 10 can be drawn to claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,186.
Claim 11 can be drawn to claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,186.
Claim 12 can be drawn to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,186.
Claim 13 can be drawn to claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,186.
Apparatus claim 14 is drawn to apparatus claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,186.
Method claim 27 is drawn to apparatus claim 11 or product claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,186.
Dependent claims 15-26 and 28-39 are similar or identical to claims 2-13 respectively, and rejected as identified above for claims 2-13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art generally refers to product placement analysis and product cannibalization metrics including associated methods and systems.
U.S. Publication 2012/0296699 A1 - Methods and apparatus are disclosed to predict new product performance metrics. An example disclosed method includes selecting a product hierarchy tree based on a distribution measure for a new product, identifying a segment location of the product hierarchy tree for the new product, retrieving a relationship matrix associated with the segment location of the product hierarchy tree, the relationship matrix comprising available product performance coefficients and attribute information, identifying a spatial location for the new product in the relationship matrix based on the attribute information, calculating, using a programmed processor, an impact parameter based on the spatial location within the relationship matrix, and calculating the performance metric for the new product based on the impact parameter and a channel sales value.
U.S. Publication 2014/0257912 A1 - Sales transaction data of products sold at a store of a retailer is employed to identify opportunities to reallocate product inventory among the products based on characteristics of sales of the products. The sales transaction data is employed to determine characteristics of product sales, including, e.g., sales volume and sell-through. The number of units of products inventoried in a store can be reallocated based on sales volume and sell-through of the products indicated by the sales transaction data. After reallocation to determine new inventory levels for the products, an estimate of sales performance for the products can be determined at the new inventory levels and the estimated sales can be compared to past actual sales measurements to determine the potential effect of changing the number of units of products allocated to inventory in a store in a retail chain of a retailer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 September 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights