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 .
1. Applicant’s amendment filed 10/17/2025 is entered. Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2.1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The currently amended claim 11 subject matter” a learning system implementing a machine learned algorithm configured to track and analyze unloading and loading times based on items in an order, and trained to predict one or more operational metrics including load and unload times, pulling times, and delivery scheduling parameters based on at least one of historical transaction data, fulfillment center attributes, puller identity or attributes, and user interactions; the learning system to perform data verification using the predicted operational metrics to identify a transaction anomaly and to validate data between a first operation protocol of the one or more operation protocols and a second operational protocol of the one or more operation protocols; responsive to the verification, initiating a communication to one or more entities to resolve the transaction anomaly or to execute a validated transaction based on an alignment of the first operation protocol and the second operation protocol”, in the independent claim 11, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner has reviewed the referenced paragraphs 0071 0115 and 0116 for support for these limitations, but the subject matter of these paragraphs does not provide support for the above highlighted limitations. The Specification does not disclose that a learning system implementing a machine learned algorithm configured and trained to predict one or more operational metrics including load and unload times based on
historical transaction data, and user interactions. The Specification also does not disclose using the predicted operational metrics to identify a transaction anomaly and initiating a communication to one or more entities to resolve the transaction anomaly or to execute a validated transaction based on an alignment of the first operation protocol and the second operation protocol.
Since claims 12-19 depend from claim 11, they inherit the deficiency of the base claim and are rejected for the same reason.
2.2. Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains newly added subject matter in the independent claim 20, “predict a type for the item partially based on a location of the second device, and determine a time to send a notification of the status, based on the location of the second device. “, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner has reviewed the referenced paragraph 0115 for support for these limitations, but the subject matter of these paragraphs does not provide support for the underlined limitations above because the rest of the claim 20 and Specification categorically describe the second device is associated to a payor and not to the puller, see Specification para 0009 “ the request requesting an invitation be sent to a second device to pay for an order, the order specifying one or more items to be purchased at a location associated with a third device, wherein a payer associated with the second device is selected via a feature provided on the user interface on the first application on the first device, sending the invitation to the second device associated with the payer, receiving order information from the second device”.
Note: Examiner suggests to amend claim 20 as-----capturing, via a sensor implemented in the puller device associated with , a near field communication (NFC) identifier emitted from an NFC transmitter of an item of an order; …… predict a load time for the item partially based on a location of the puller device; infer a status of a pulling process of the item; and determine a time to send a notification of the status, based on the location of the puller device to overcome this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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--19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-10 are to a process comprising a series of steps, clams 11-19 to a system which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Amended Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
(i) tracking and analyzing unloading and loading times based on items in an order, and learning to predict load and unload times based on the items included in the order using a machine learned algorithm, the machine learned algorithm trained to infer order specific delivery charges by accounting for total time of a delivery, based on the tracked and analyzed loading and unloading times for the order based on one or more attributes of items included in the order;
(ii) providing one or more devices with one or more blocks in electronic communication with each other, and
(iii) wherein each block of the one or more blocks contains a cryptographic hash of a previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data, and
wherein the device with one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium:
(iv) receiving, at a communication system, a request from a user interface on a first device, the request generated based on a selection on the user interface on an application on the first device, requesting an invitation via the user interface on the application on the first device be sent to an application on a second device to authorize he order and if approved, pay for the order, the order specifying one or more items to be purchased at a location associated with a third device, wherein a payer associated with the second device is selected via a feature provided on the user interface on a first application on the first device;
(v) sending the invitation to the second device associated with the payer to be authorized by an approval of the order via the user interface on the application on the second device, and
(vi) wherein an approval notification is sent to the user interface on the application of the first device and payment is processed at the application of the second device if the order is approved, and
(vii) wherein a declined notification is sent to the user interface on the application of the first device to revise order information of the order with updated order information if the order is declined;
(viii) responsive to the approval of the order, a first block of the one or more blocks to transmit by a location-based dispatch system (LBDS), a request for payment information to the application of the first device;
(ix) generating, by the LBDS, a second block based on the first block and the payment information;
(x) receiving via the application of the first device the updated order information from the application of the second device;
(xi) updating the order based on the updated order information via the user interface on the application on the first device to create an updated order, wherein updating the order comprises updating the one or more items specified to be purchased based on the updated order information;
(xii) responsive to creating the updated order, generating via the first device a second invitation to the second device associated with the payer to be authorized by an approval of the updated order via the application on the second device;
(xii) sending a communication via the application of the second device to the application of the third device to purchase the one or more items from the location associated with the third device if the order or the updated order is approved;
(xiv) transmitting, by the LBDS, a third block based on the first block and the second block, to the third device; and
(xv) generating, by the LBDS, a fourth block based on the first block, the second block, and the third block at the user interface of the application of the third device.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1--19 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations comprising, “tracking and analyzing unloading and loading times based on items in an order, and learning to predict load and unload times based on the items included in the order to infer order specific delivery charges by accounting for total time of a delivery, based on the tracked and analyzed loading and unloading times for the order based on one or more attributes of items included in the order; receiving a request from a user, the request generated based on a selection on the user, requesting an invitation be sent to authorize an order and if approved, pay for the order, the order specifying one or more items to be purchased at a location, sending the invitation to the payer to be authorized by an approval of the order , wherein an approval notification is sent to the user and payment is processed if the order is approved, and wherein a declined notification is sent to the user to revise order information of the order with updated order information if the order is declined; responsive to the approval of the order transmit a request for payment information , receiving the updated order information, updating the order based on the updated order information to create an updated order, wherein updating the order comprises updating the one or more items specified to be purchased based on the updated order information; responsive to creating the updated order, generating a second invitation to the payer to be authorized by an approval of the updated order , sending a communication to purchase the one or more items from the location if the order or the updated order is approved”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial activity of a purchase being made by first entity at a merchant location, the first entity is required to send an invitation for payment to a third party who can approve or decline to approve the order, resulting the first entity has to adjust the items in the order and then the updated order is sent with a request for approval, and on approval the purchase transaction can be carried out”, as recited, relate to a commercial activity falling under . “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II., because the limitations relate to receiving an order, calculating a delivery cost [charge] based on loading and unloading times for the ordered goods, an arranging payment from a third party falling within commercial interactions and sales activity.
The limitations, “ tracking and analyzing unloading and loading times based on items in an order, and learning to predict load and unload times based on the items included in the order to infer order specific delivery charges by accounting for total time of a delivery, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a human operator can estimate loading and unloading time based upon the goods weight and volume and history and then can calculate the delivery charges based on total time required for a delivery. Other than reciting “by a communication system” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the communication system” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at a changed order data and based upon that update the earlier order, requires a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a communication system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim 1 also recites a mental process. Since claim 1 recites limitations falling under two separate groupings of abstract ideas, the Supreme Court (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)) has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Accordingly, limitations considered under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Claim 11 recites plurality of the limitations same as recited in claim 1 and those limitations are analyzed on the same basis as reciting abstract ideas. The additional limitations of claim 11 are and analyzed below:
11. (Currently Amended) A location-based dispatch system (LBDS) comprising:
a communication system to implement one or more operation protocols;
a models and algorithms processor to store the one or more operation protocols;
a learning system implementing a machine learned algorithm configured and trained to predict one or more operational metrics including load and unload times, pulling times, and delivery scheduling parameters based on at least one of historical transaction data, fulfillment center attributes, puller identity or attributes, and user interactions;
the learning system to perform data verification using the predicted operational metrics to identify a transaction anomaly and to validate data between a first operation protocol of the one or more operation protocols and a second operational protocol of the one or more operation protocols; responsive to the verification, initiating a communication to one or more entities to resolve the transaction anomaly or to execute a validated transaction based on an alignment of the first operation protocol and the second operation protocol”;
The highlighted limitations comprising, “predict one or more operational metrics including load and unload times, pulling times, and delivery scheduling parameters based on at least one of historical transaction data, fulfillment center attributes, puller identity or attributes, and user interactions; perform data verification using the predicted operational metrics to identify a transaction anomaly and to validate data between a first operation protocol of the one or more operation protocols and a second operational protocol of the one or more operation protocols”, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The term “operational protocols” are not provided any specific definition in the Applicant’s Specification and therefore their plain meaning is considered as set of rules and instructions as how to perform a task. For example, a human operator can analyze the historical data and user interactions to predict operational metrics, and then can compare the operational protocols with the predicted operational protocols to identify if any transaction anomaly exists and if there is an alignment between the first and second protocols. Further, execution of a validated transaction such as a purchase transaction demonstrated by the rest of the limitations in the claim can be performed manually. Accordingly, claim 11 and its dependent claims 12-19 recite a judicial exception.
Thus, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-10, claim 11 and its dependent claims 12-19 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-19 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of using generic computer components comprising a generic computer system communicating with a generic computing device implementing the steps of:
“ (i) tracking and analyzing unloading and loading times based on items in an order, and learning to predict load and unload times based on the items included in the order using a machine learned algorithm, the machine learned algorithm trained to infer order specific delivery charges by accounting for total time of a delivery, total time of a delivery, , and do not include any details about how the “predicting” and “inferring are accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “using a trained machine learning algorithm also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using a trained machine learning algorithm ” limits the identified judicial exceptions “predicting load and unload and inferring order specific delivery charges, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The limitations in steps (ii), (iii), (viii), (ix), (xiv) and (xiv) “ (ii)providing one or more devices with one or more blocks in electronic communication with each other, and (iii) wherein each block of the one or more blocks contains a cryptographic hash of a previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data, (viii)responsive to the approval of the order, a first block of the one or more blocks to transmit by a location-based dispatch system (LBDS), a request for payment information to the application of the first device; (ix) generating, by the LBDS, a second block based on the first block and the payment information; (xv) transmitting, by the LBDS, a third block based on the first block and the second block, to the third device; and (xvi) generating, by the LBDS, a fourth block based on the first block, the second block, and the third block at the user interface of the application of the third device. These steps relate to implementing a commercial activity using generic computer devices and using the generic functions of block chain for transmitting, receiving and storing the communications related to payment, approval for order, updates to order by generating, without providing details of an improvement on the known well-under stood concept of the block chain. These limitations recite the transactions involved in a commercial transaction such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using blockchain concept with generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations in following steps “(iv) receiving, at a communication system, a request from a user interface on a first device, the request generated based on a selection on the user interface on an application on the first device, requesting an invitation via the user interface on the application on the first device be sent to an application on a second device to authorize an order and if approved, pay for the order, the order specifying one or more items to be purchased at a location associated with a third device, wherein a payer associated with the second device is selected via a feature provided on the user interface on a first application on the first device; (v) sending the invitation to the second device associated with the payer to be authorized by an approval of the order via the user interface on the application on the second device, and (vi) wherein an approval notification is sent to the user interface on the application of the first device and payment is processed at the application of the second device if the order is approved, and (vii) wherein a declined notification is sent to the user interface on the application of the first device to revise order information of the order with updated order information if the order is declined; (x) receiving via the application of the first device the updated order information from the application of the second device; and (xiii) sending a communication via the application of the second device to the application of the third device to purchase the one or more items from the location associated with the third device if the order or the updated order is approved;”, are mere data gathering and data providing recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and providing, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and providing. See MPEP 2106.05. In these limitations the computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving and providing data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations in steps , “ (xi) updating the order based on the updated order information via the user interface on the application on the first device to create an updated order, wherein updating the order comprises updating the one or more items specified to be purchased based on the updated order information; responsive to creating the updated order, generating via the first device a second invitation to the second device associated with the payer to be authorized by an approval of the updated order via the application on the second device;” are recited as being performed by generic computers, which are recited at a high level of generality. In these limitations, the computers are used to perform an abstract idea of “Mental Processes”, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations “inferring, an order specific delivery charge by accounting for total time of a delivery, using a machine learnt algorithm trained to predict load and unload times, estimating loading and unloading times for the order based on one or more attributes of items included in the order”, reciting “using a machine learnt algorithm trained” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The judicial exception “inferring, an order specific delivery charge by accounting for total time of a delivery using a machine learnt algorithm trained to predict load and unload times” is performed using the trained machine learnt algorithm. The trained machine learnt algorithm is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained machine learnt algorithm functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “inferring an order specific delivery charge by accounting a total time” and do not include any details about how the “inferring” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “using a trained machine learnt algorithm” in the limitations also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using a trained machine learnt algorithm” limits the identified judicial exceptions “inferring, an order specific delivery charge by accounting for total time of a delivery using a machine learnt algorithm trained to predict load and unload times”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed both individually and in combination, the additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES)
The claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 11: The plurality of the limitations of the other currently amended claim 11 are similar to those of claim 1, except for the currently added new limitations: “a communication system to implement one or more operation protocols; a models and algorithms processor to store the one or more operation protocols; the learning system to perform data verification using the predicted operational metrics to identify a transaction anomaly and to validate data between a first operation protocol of the one or more operation protocols and a second operational protocol of the one or more operation protocols; responsive to the verification, initiating a communication to one or more entities to resolve the transaction anomaly or to execute a validated transaction based on an alignment of the first operation protocol and the second operation protocol”. All the same/similar limitations of claim 11 as those of claim 1 are analyzed on the same basis and they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of claim 11, as recited, use a communication system [which is a computer described in the specification] operate protocols and perform data verification using the predicted operational metrics to identify a transaction anomaly and to validate data between a first operation protocol of the one or more operation protocols and a second operational protocol of the one or more operation protocols. In these limitations the computing system is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The step of storing protocols is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data) and is a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, claim 11, similar to claim 1, is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-3, 7-8, 12-13, 17-18 recite limitations directed to non-functional descriptive data qualifying the limitations recited in claim 1 and claim 11, claims 4-6, 9, 14-16, and 19 include limitations directed to sending data which is a form of non-significant extra-curricular activity, and claims 9-10, and 19 recite limitations directed to identifying function which is mental/manual activity and as such the additional elements of the dependent claims 2-10, 13-19 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2A=Yes. Claims 1-19 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements using the chain block in the limitations, as discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The use of block chain concept was well-known before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and mere reciting the use of block chain, as here, in a nominal way does not amount to any technical improvement and “Significant More”. Please refer to Kravitz reference which provides evidence that the use of block chain concept was well-known before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention: Reference Kravitz [US 20170147808 A1, describes that use of block chain technology was well-known in many different fields, see paras 0021, “Well-known block chain technologies have been designed without an underlying identity management backbone. “, and para 0001, “A time-sequenced immutable database, for example implemented using block chain technology (also referenced as “blockchain”), is a distributed database that is implemented using a plurality of nodes. The nodes each maintain a copy of a sequentially growing list or ledger of data records or query one or more other nodes. An example of a block chain implementation is a public ledger used for crypto-currency transactions. The data of a block chain may be protected by encryption and may include data other than crypto-currency transactions, e.g., smart contracts may be implemented using a block chain.”. Similarly, the use of trained machine learnt algorithm, as recited in claims 1 and 11 is used to apply the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The use of trained machine learnt algorithm was well-known before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and mere reciting the use of trained machine learnt algorithm, as here, in a nominal way does not amount to any technical improvement and “Significant More”. Accordingly, a conclusion that the use of block chain and machine learnt algorithms is well‐understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Applicant’s additional elements reciting updating order step, generating a second invitation, and identifying function as discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two are at best mere instructions using generic computers to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additional elements comprising receiving, sending and storing data, as discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two, were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and providing/outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of receiving data and providing/outputting data” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting or storing data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 10
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a computer to perform limitations comprising receiving data, sending/providing data, storing or updating order, generating message and identifying function amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Even when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-19 are patent ineligible.
4. Claim 20: Subject Matter Eligibility:
Claim 20 is patent eligible.
Though claim 20 recites abstract ideas under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” as it recites several limitations similar to those discussed for claim 1, as analyzed above, it is not directed to an abstract idea because the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “ capturing, via a sensor implemented in the second device, a near field communication (NFC) identifier emitted from an NFC transmitter of an item of an order; and identifying a type of the item using a machine learnt algorithm trained to: predict a load time for the item partially based on a location of the second device: infer a status of a pulling process of the item; and determine a time to send a notification of the status, based on the location of the second device”, recited in the claim applies or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, the claim 11 recites eligible subject matter.
5. Prior art discussion:
5.1. Claims 1 -10:
Reference independent claim 1, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations, as a whole, comprising
tracking and analyzing unloading and loading times based on items in an order, and learning to predict load and unload times based on the items included in the order using a machine learned algorithm, the machine learned algorithm trained to infer order specific delivery charges by accounting for total time of a delivery, based on the tracked and analyzed estimated loading and unloading times for the order based on one or more attributes of items included in the order; providing one or more devices with one or more blocks in electronic communication with each other, and responsive to the approval of the order, a first block of the one or more blocks to transmit by a location-based dispatch system (LBDS), a request for payment information to the application of the first device, generating, by the LBDS, a second block based on the first block and the payment information, transmitting, by the LBDS, a third block based on the first block and the second block, to the third device, and generating, by the LBDS, a fourth block based on the first block, the second block, and the third block at the user interface of the application of the third device [Claims 2-10 depend from claim1.].
5.2: Clams 11-19
Reference independent claim 11, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations, as a whole, comprising a learning system implementing a machine learned algorithm configured and trained to predict one or more operational metrics including load and unload times, pulling times, and delivery scheduling parameters based on at least one of historical transaction data, fulfillment center attributes, puller identity or attributes, and user interactions, performing data verification using the predicted operational metrics to identify a transaction anomaly and to validate data between a first operation protocol of the one or more operation protocols and a second operational protocol of the one or more operation protocols, responsive to the verification, initiating a communication to one or more entities to resolve the transaction anomaly or to execute a validated transaction based on an alignment of the first operation protocol and the second operation protocol, providing one or more devices with one or more blocks in electronic communication with each other, and responsive to the approval of the order, a first block of the one or more blocks to transmit by a location-based dispatch system (LBDS), a request for payment information to the application of the first device, generating, by the LBDS, a second block based on the first block and the payment information, transmitting, by the LBDS, a third block based on the first block and the second block, to the third device, and generating, by the LBDS, a fourth block based on the first block, the second block, and the third block at the user interface of the application of the third device [Claims 12-19 depend from claim11.].
5.3. Claim 20:
Reference independent claim 20, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations, as a whole, comprising providing one or more devices with one or more blocks in electronic communication with each other, and responsive to the approval of the order, a first block of the one or more blocks to transmit by a location-based dispatch system (LBDS), a request for payment information to the application of the first device, generating, by the LBDS, a second block based on the first block and the payment information, transmitting, by the LBDS, a third block based on the first block and the second block, to the third device, and generating, by the LBDS, a fourth block based on the first block, the second block, and the third block at the user interface of the application of the third device, and capturing, via a sensor implemented in the second device, a near field communication (NFC) identifier emitted from an NFC transmitter of an item of an order; and identifying a type of the item using a machine learnt algorithm trained to: predict a load time for the item partially based on a location of the second device: infer a status of a pulling process of the item; and determine a time to send a notification of the status, based on the location of the second device.
6. Note: claims 1-10: If the independent claim 10 is amended to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection, claims 1-10 can be placed in condition for allowance.
claims 11-19: If the independent claim is amended to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection and 35 USC 112(a) rejection, they can be placed in condition for allowance.
If claim 20 is amended to overcome 35 USC 112(a) rejection as suggested, it can be placed in condition for allowance.
7. The best prior art of record relevant to the Applicant’s claims and Specification:
(i) Kim et al. [US 20150317622 A; See Kim claims 1, 4, paras 0003, 0011-0016, 0018-0019, 0034 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 03/06/2024]. These excerpts teach a system, and method receives a request from a purchaser’s device 102 [see Fig.1], the request is for requesting an invitation to be sent to second device 106 of a payor [see Fig.1] for a payment transaction. Kim teaches based on received payer request the payer is notified and a payment is received via him.
(ii) Takeuchi et al. [US 20050033658 A1; see paras 0012-0016, 0034—0036, 0045—0048, cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 03/06/2024] teaches that an order reconfirmation system sends a message via email to the payors [parents of pupils studying in a school], for the picture prints selected for purchasing by the pupils. In response to receiving the message the payors [parents] can change the order items [such as size of prints or number of prints] and send the modified/updated order with message of approval for purchasing to the order with the modified prints at the school associated with the reconfirmation system.
(iii) Bishop et al. [US 8190514B2, cited in the Final Rejection mailed 09/27/2024, see claim 15] describes a computerized system comprising receiving a payment request for a transaction, determining a first payment system for processing at least a portion of the transaction and transmitting to the first payment system, a first authorization request related to the at least a portion of the transaction, in response receiving a first authorization response indicating at least one of a decline or a partial authorization, which will lead to determining a second payment system for processing at least a portion of the transaction and transmitting a second authorization request related to at least a portion of the transaction and receiving a second authorization response.
Foreign reference:
(iv) WO 2017145019 A1, cited in the Final Rejection mailed 09/27/2024, cites, “The most widely known application of block chain technology is the Bitcoin ledger, although other blockchain implementations have been proposed and developed”.
NPL references:
(v) Article, “IBM Names Thee Blockchain Adoption Principles Essential for Every CEO to consider “; P R Newswire [New York] 24 April 2017 retrieved from Dialog on 09/24/2024 and cited in the Final Rejection mailed 09/27/2024describes that Blockchain is also known as distributed ledger technology has quickly made its way into the enterprise and has become a revolutionary technology for business transactions as was the Internet for communications in late 1990s.
(vi) Article, “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Releases Bank of America's Patent Application for Anonymous Electronic Payment System’, Publication info: Global IP News. Banking Patent News [New Delhi] 10 Sep 2015; retrieved from Dialog on 05/30/2022 [cited in the parent Application 17/094,881, now US Patent 11599933] states that the patent Application No. 14/716458 filed with USPTO discloses systems and methods for autonomous payments to an individual, comprising a user interface associated with an individual generating a payment request for a transaction to an account associated with an entity. In response to the request generating an Internet accessible address to the electronic payment user interface and an authorization input from the payer to make an electronic payment of monetary funds from an account of the payer to the account of the individual is received.
Response to Arguments
8.1 Rejection of claims 11 and 20 under 35 USC 112(a)
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025, see pages 10-19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Reference claim 11, Examiner has reviewed the referenced paragraphs 0071 0115 and 0116 for support for these limitations, but the subject matter of these paragraphs does not provide support or disclose that a learning system implementing a machine learned algorithm configured and trained to predict one or more operational metrics including load and unload times based on historical transaction data, and user interactions. The Specification also does not disclose using the predicted operational metrics to identify a transaction anomaly and initiating a communication to one or more entities to resolve the transaction anomaly or to execute a validated transaction based on an alignment of the first operation protocol and the second operation protocol.
Possession is shown by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations. See MPEP 2163(I) and MPEP 2163.02 Here the Specification does not satisfy and support the limitations discussed above. Although he subject matter of the claim need not be described literally (i.e., using the same terms or in haec verba) in order for the disclosure to satisfy the description requirement, the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skilled in the art to recognize that the applicant(s) invented what is being claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement. See MPEP 2163(II) and MPEP 2163.02-2163.03
Reference claim 20, the second device recited in the claim is associated with a payor, see Specification para 0009 “ the request requesting an invitation be sent to a second device to pay for an order, the order specifying one or more items to be purchased at a location associated with a third device, wherein a payer associated with the second device is selected via a feature provided on the user interface on the first application on the first device, sending the invitation to the second device associated with the payer, receiving order information from the second device”, and not with a puller device. As suggested above if the claim 20 is amended to replace the second device by a puller device, the rejection can be overcome.
8.2. Rejection of claims 35 USC 101:
Examiner has already considered claim 20 as patent eligible. As such the Examiner’s response is directed to the independent claims 1 and 11.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025,with respect to rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 USC 101, see pages 19-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong I:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments that as per Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, because Step 2A, Prong One analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. As analyzed above, claims 1, and 11 do recite abstract idea. The limitations of claim 1, as analyzed above, , covers a commercial activity of a purchase being made by first entity at a merchant location, the first entity is required to send an invitation for payment to a third party who can approve or decline to approve the order, resulting the first entity has to adjust the items in the order and then the updated order is sent with a request for approval, and on approval the purchase transaction can be carried out”, as recited, relate to a commercial activity falling under . “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II., because the limitations relate to receiving an order, calculating a delivery cost [charge] based on loading and unloading times for the ordered goods, an arranging payment from a third party falling within commercial interactions and sales activity. Further, the limitations, “ tracking and analyzing unloading and loading times based on items in an order, and learning to predict load and unload times based on the items included in the order to infer order specific delivery charges by accounting for total time of a delivery, based on one or more attributes of items included in the order; updating the order based on the updated order information to create an updated order, wherein updating the order comprises updating the one or more items specified to be purchased based on the updated order information; responsive to creating the updated order, generating a second invitation to the payer to be authorized by an approval of the updated order”, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a human operator can estimate loading and unloading time based upon the goods weight and volume and history and then can calculate the delivery charges based on total time required for a delivery. Other than reciting “by a communication system” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the communication system” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at a changed order data and based upon that update the earlier order, requires a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a communication system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim 1 also recites a mental process. Since claim 1 recites limitations falling under two separate groupings of abstract ideas, the Supreme Court (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)) has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Accordingly, limitations considered under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES). Claim 11 recites plurality of the limitations same as recited in claim 1 and those limitations are analyzed on the same basis as reciting abstract ideas. The additional limitati