DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to applicant’s request for continued examination (RCE) received 07/13/2026.
Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 17-20 are amended. Claims 6-7 are cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are currently pending.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection to claims have been considered, however they are primary raised in light of applicants amended. An updated 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection will address applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues The Examiner characterizes the specific technical elements recited in claims 1, 13, and 19 - including API-based machine-to-machine data exchange, dynamic queue updating, metric calculation from historical transaction data, insertion of order records with defined status values, and dynamic adjustment of completion time estimates - as generic computing elements without any analysis of their specific technical significance. This is precisely the high-level-of-generality analysis Desjardins prohibits.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the claims in Desjardins reflects a specific improvement that addressed the technical problem of “catastrophic forgetting” in continual learning systems, while allowing artificial intelligence systems to variously optimize system performance, use less storage capacity and reduce system complexity by showing an improved way of training a machine learning model that protected the model’s knowledge about previous tasks while allowing it to effectively learn new tasks. Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential). Unlike Desjardins, applicant’s claims are directed to optimizing real-time order processing and fulfillment at in-store counters using data collection, analysis, and generic computer implementation. The claims recite using computing systems to implement a workflow for managing in-store orders and estimating completion time. The examiner notes that the claim is considered as a whole, which determined that the claim is directed to collecting transaction data, analyzing the data, updating order status, and estimating completion times for order fulfillment. The claims are directed to managing and coordinating order fulfillment and estimating completion time using transaction data, which are considered abstract idea. The examiner notes the claims do not recite an improvement to the technical operation of the API, transaction terminal, queue, processor, memory, or network. Instead, the computer components perform their ordinary function of receiving, analyzing, storing, updating, and transmitting order information. The additional elements are used (Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [0018]-[0021]) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
In accordance to MPEP 2106.05(d), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)); 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.”); and 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).
The applicant asserts in Ex parte Kelley, Appeal No. 2026-000066 (PTAB Apr. 1, 2026), the Board reversed a § 101 rejection where the claims recited a specific technical approach -replacing computationally intensive non-linear constraints with linear proxy constraints - that constituted an improvement to how the computer system itself operated. The Board relied directly on Desjardins in finding that the claims integrated an abstract idea into a practical application. The present claims are analogous. The claims recite a specific technical architecture - integrating a cloud-based in-store order manager with a transaction terminal through a defined API to dynamically manage order queues, calculate completion time metrics, and insert order records with defined status values - that constitutes an improvement to how the transaction terminal and in-store order management system themselves operate.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes unlike Kelley, the present claims do not improve how a computer operates. The API, transaction terminal, and pending order queue merely receive, store, update, and communicate customer-order information. Accordingly, Applicant’s claims have not been shown to be directed to any improvement in computer related technology, but instead merely utilize a general-purpose computer and known techniques in the art for performing the abstract idea, which individually and collectively lack any discernible nexus to a technological result or improvement related thereto.
The examiner notes that while the limitation such as a transaction terminal that is associated with the in-store counter, the in-store order manager is configured to integrate with cloud processing environments to optimize real-time order processing and fulfillment, employing an in-store order manager, and integrating an in-store order management with the transaction system are considered additional elements, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [0018]-[0021]) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. Further, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Next, in response to Applicant’s suggestion that the claims result in an improvement to computer-related technology by seeking to analogize to the rationale set forth in the Enfish decision, the Examiner emphasizes that merely using a general purpose computer to execute the communications processing activities, without more, does not improve the performance of a computer or any technology at all, but merely employs generic technology as a tool to perform the steps of the abstract idea, such that any improvement achieved by automating the processing of communications would come from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the sequence of steps/activities recited in the method itself, which does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claim. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”) (cited in the Federal Circuit's FairWarning decision). In Enfish, the claims recited a specific self-referential database structure that improved how a computer stored and retrieved information. Therefore, in contrast to Enfish’s computer-based improvement achieved by configuring memory according to a logical table embodying the claimed solution/improvement (i.e., a self-referential table) that resulted in faster search times and smaller memory requirements, Applicant’s claims do not configure, reconfigure, manipulate, transform, or improve a computer, a database, or any technological components whatsoever, but instead utilize a general purpose computer as a tool for gathering data, analyzing the data for estimating completion time and updating order status, and presenting the results of the analysis. Accordingly, Applicant’s claims have not been shown to be directed to any improvement in computer related technology, but instead merely utilize a general-purpose computer and known techniques in the art for performing the abstract idea, which individually and collectively lack any discernible nexus to a technological result or improvement related thereto.
The applicant argues that the claims as a whole integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application through the specific technical architecture recited. Under MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application when it recites an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another This architecture is analogous to the claims found patent eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), where the Federal Circuit found patent eligibility for claims that specified how interactions between computer systems were technically configured to produce a defined result that overrides conventional operation. Here, the claimed architecture specifies how interactions between the mobile application, the in-store order manager, the cloud processing environment, the transaction system, and the transaction terminal are technically configured through defined API calls to produce a defined result - insertion of order records with waiting status values into the transaction terminal's queue - that overrides the conventional standalone operation of transaction terminals at in-store counters. This architecture is further analogous to BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the Federal Circuit found that an inventive concept can be found in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known elements. The present claims recite a specific, non-conventional arrangement of a cloud-based in-store order manager, a transaction terminal, a transaction system, a mobile application, and an API that interact in a defined technical manner to produce a specific technical result that was not possible with conventional in-store counter systems.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In contrast to DDR, which was directed to a solution rooted in Internet technology, Applicant's invention can be easily performed in the absence of the computer and network- based elements recited in the claims, such that Applicant's claims cannot be reasonably taken as being "necessarily rooted in computer technology." Instead, the computer-based elements in Applicant's claims amount to nothing more than appending generic computing elements to the claimed abstract idea in order to tie it to a particular operating environment through generic computer implementation, but without any indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, the network, or any other technology. In addition, the Examiner emphasizes that Applicant's claims are distinguishable from those deemed eligible in the Bascom decision. In Bascom, the Federal Circuit found that the claims included a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement" of the additional elements, including installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. However, Applicant's claims do not include similar features or provide a non-conventional arrangement of the additional elements, instead merely incorporating elements of a general-purpose computer. In addition, the Examiner emphasizes that the claimed filtering technique in Bascom, similar to the solution discussed in DDR, appears to be rooted in Internet technology (tied to an ISP server), which is distinguishable from Applicant's invention that is not rooted in internet technology as was the ISP-based content filtering scheme of Bascom. the claims recite using computing systems to implement a workflow for managing in-store orders and estimating completion time. The examiner notes that the claim is considered as a whole, which determined that the claim is directed to collecting transaction data, analyzing the data, updating order status, and estimating completion times for order fulfillment. The claims are directed to managing and coordinating order fulfillment and estimating completion time using transaction data, which are considered abstract idea. The limitation of “Integration of cloud processing environments with transaction systems” and “Coordination between mobile applications, in-store order managers, and transaction systems through API integration” merely invoke genic computing environment to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, the reasons for eligibility in the Bascom decision are not applicable to Applicant's claims.
Applicant asserts that Examiner's Step 2B analysis is insufficient. The applicant asserts that the Examiner concludes at Step 2B that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. However, the Examiner reaches this conclusion only by evaluating each element individually and characterizing each as a generic computing function without analyzing the ordered combination of elements as required by Alice and MPEP § 2106.05. When the elements of claims 1, 13, and 19 are evaluated as an ordered combination, as required, the combination recites a specific non-conventional technical architecture. The ordered combination does not represent the routine or conventional use of generic computing elements. The Examiner has not identified any prior art system that performs this specific combination, and the specification explicitly states that this combination "changes the traditional workflow and processes associated with placing and fulfilling orders at in-store counters." An ordered combination that changes traditional workflow in a defined technical manner amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes the additional elements have been considered individually and as an ordered combination, as required by MPEP 2106.05 and 2106.07(b). As an ordered combination, the claims use a cloud-based order manager and an API to receive order information, analyze transaction data, calculate a completion estimate time, insert an order into a queue with a waiting status, monitor the status, and send notification. This combination implements the abstract commercial process using ordinary computer functions. The components do not operate in an unconventional manner and do not produce an improvement in computer functionality.
The additional limitations are directed to: interacting with a mobile application of a mobile device to enable a customer to associate one or more items with an order at an in-store counter of a store (recited at high level of generality amounts to data gathering means, which amount to “apply it” and extra-solution activity), processor from the mobile application, configuring, by the processor, a transaction terminal that is associated with the in-store counter, the transaction terminal is configured to interact with an in-store order manager and a cloud processing environment, the transaction system using an application programming interface (API), notifying, by the processor, the customer through the mobile application, executing, by the processor, Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, an updated 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection will address applicant’s amendments.
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 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is 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. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry, it is first noted that the method (claims 1-5 and 7-12), the method (claims 13-18), and the system (claims 19-20) are directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e. process, article of manufacture, and machine respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts managing interaction between two people (user and store entity to manage user order) and commercial interactions including sales activities, and agreements in the form of contracts (order fulfillment), which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity”, further the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “mental processes” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. Further, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: A method, comprising: interacting, by a processor, with a mobile application of a mobile device to enable a customer to associate one or more items with an order at an in-store counter of a store; estimating, by the processor, a completion time as an estimated completion time in which; receiving, by the processor from the mobile application, a desired time for pickup of the order from the customer; configuring, by the processor, a transaction terminal that is associated with the in-store counter to manage the order based on real-time and historical transaction data and to optimize order fulfillment by: evaluating historical transaction data associated with historical orders of the transaction terminal; and evaluating current pending orders in view of the historical transaction data to estimate the completion time; wherein the transaction terminal is configured to interact with an in-store order manager and a cloud processing environment to optimize real-time order processing and fulfillment based on the estimated completion time, the in-store order manager dynamically updates a pending order queue based on real-time transaction data from a transaction system; obtains historical transaction information and real-time transactions from the transaction system using an application programming interface (API),and calculates metrics from the historical transaction information based on time of day, calendar day, or day of week to determine the estimated completion time; placing, by the processor, the order with the desired time on behalf of the customer at the transaction terminal; inserting, by the processor, the order into the pending order queue with a waiting status at the transaction terminal through the API; updating, by the processor, a current status of the order with the transaction system as each item of the one or more items of the order is fulfilled at the in-store counter; dynamically tracking , by the processor, a picking of the order at the in-store counter based on an actual completion progress of the order; and notifying, by the processor, the customer through the mobile application when the current status of the order changes to a completed status indicating that the order has been fulfilled and is ready for customer pickup at the in-store counter based on the dynamically tracking.
The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 13, are: A method, comprising: compiling, by a processor, a first list of one or more items from a second list of one or more items based on associations of the first list with an in-store counter of a store and the second list ; calculating, by the processor, an estimated completion time for the first list to be fulfilled at the in-store counter based at least on a pending order queue of a transaction terminal associated with the in-store counter; executing, by the processor, to dynamically update the pending order queue based on real-time transaction data from a transaction system by: evaluating historical transaction data associated with historical orders of the transaction terminal; evaluate current pending orders in view of the historical transaction data to estimate completion times; and calculating metrics from historical transaction information based on time of day, calendar day, or; wherein the in-store order manager is configured to interact to optimize real-time order processing and fulfillment based on and the estimated completion time; integrating an in-store order management system with the transaction system to facilitate real-time order processing and fulfillment based on the estimated completion time; tracking actual order fulfillment progress at the in-store counter and dynamically adjusting the estimated completion time based on actual progress; placing an in-store order for the first list with the transaction terminal; inserting the in-store order into the pending order queue with a waiting status at the transaction terminal through an application programming interface (API); updating a current status of the in-store order with the transaction system as each item of the in-store order is fulfilled at the in-store counter; monitoring the pending order queue for a change in a current status for the in-store order; and sending a notification to a mobile device operated by a customer when the current status is a completed status.
The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 19, are: A system, comprising: a cloud processing environment comprising at least one server; the at least one server comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises executable instructions; and the executable instructions when executed on the processor from the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium cause the processor to perform operations comprising: identifying one or more in-store counter items in a shopping list of one or more items associated with an in-store counter of a store, wherein the shopping list is associated with a customer of the store; estimating a completion time as an estimated completion time for the one or more in- store counter items to be fulfilled at the in-store counter; configuring a transaction system associated with the store to manage the one or more in-store counter items and to optimize real-time order processing by: evaluating historical transaction data associated with historical orders; evaluating current pending orders in view of the historical transaction data to estimate completion times; and calculating metrics from historical transaction information based on time of day, calendar day, or wherein the transaction system interacts with the cloud processing environment to optimize real-time order processing and fulfillment based on an estimated completion time; updating a current status of an with the transaction system as each in-store counter item of the integrating an in-store order management system with the transaction system to facilitate real-time order processing and fulfillment based on the estimated completion time; tracking actual order fulfillment progress at the in-store counter and dynamically adjusting the estimated completion time based on actual progress; inserting the order into a pending order queue with a waiting status at a transaction terminal through an application programming interface (API); monitoring a current status of the order through the transaction system based on a pending order queue maintained for the transaction terminal located at the in-store counter by the transaction system; and sending one or more notifications to a mobile device operated by the customer when the current status of the order changes.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to processor, interacting with a mobile application of a mobile device to enable a customer to associate one or more items with an order at an in-store counter of a store (recited at high level of generality amounts to data gathering means, which amount to “apply it” and extra-solution activity), processor from the mobile application, configuring, by the processor, a transaction terminal that is associated with the in-store counter, the transaction terminal is configured to interact with an in-store order manager and a cloud processing environment, the transaction system using an application programming interface (API), notifying, by the processor, the customer through the mobile application, executing, by the processor, “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. In accordance to MPEP 2106.05(d), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)); 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.”); and 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).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: interacting with a mobile application of a mobile device to enable a customer to associate one or more items with an order at an in-store counter of a store (recited at high level of generality amounts to data gathering means, which amount to “apply it” and extra-solution activity), processor from the mobile application, configuring, by the processor, a transaction terminal that is associated with the in-store counter, the transaction terminal is configured to interact with an in-store order manager and a cloud processing environment, the transaction system using an application programming interface (API), notifying, by the processor, the customer through the mobile application, executing, by the processor, Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. In accordance to MPEP 2106.05(d), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)); 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.”); and 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).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well(e.g., claim 3 recite receiving the one or more items as the one or more items are entered into a user-facing interface of the mobile application, which amounts to collecting data; claim 4 recite receiving further includes providing a menu of available items for the in-store counter to the mobile application to enable the customer to select the one or more items from the menu within the user-facing interface., claim 5 recite interacting further includes requesting the one or more items from the mobile application when a current location of the mobile device is reported to be within a geofenced area of the store; claim 8 recite providing the estimated completion time to the mobile application for presentation to the customer in a user-facing interface of the mobile application; claim 10 recites receiving further includes receiving the desired time from the mobile application based on a default preference set by the customer usinggeneric, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo), however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activities, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner Notes
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are allowable over the available field of prior art. The independent claims, as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. The claims overcome the prior art such that none of the cited prior art references can bc applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101, as set forth above.
The closest prior art of record is Eric Adam Snow (US 2016/0203543 A1, hereinafter “Snow”) in view of John Koke (US 2012/0078673 A1, hereinafter “Koke”) in view of Bruce W. Wilkinson (US 2018/0082251 A1, hereinafter “Wilkinson”) in view of Aman Dhesi (US 2021/0019694 A1, hereinafter “Dhesi”) in view of Jie-ming Mao (CN 104504595 A, hereinafter “Mao”), Robert S. Hoblit (US 2005/0177446 A1, hereinafter “Hoblit”), and Austin Lee Smith (US 2018/0365637 A1, hereinafter “Smith”).
Snow is directed to a method for providing an accurate, timely and precise pickup time for a multi-product order. A first item selection in an order is received from a user through an online order interface. A second item to be added to the order is received from the user through the interface. A first pickup time is calculated based on a factorial assessment, including locational dispersion of the items. This is provided to the user. The user can change or delete any of the items to modify the first pickup time before finalizing the order. Picking of the order is dynamically tracked at the picking facility and a second pickup time is calculated based on the completion of the picking of the order. This is provided to the user, as a modification of the first pickup time. A picker device is also provided. Koke is directed to a dynamic queueing and management system. The system utilizes the desired completion time in determining where to place new orders into the queue of orders to be fulfilled. If the desired completion time changes, the position of the corresponding order is adjusted within the queue. In some embodiments, the desired completion time is determined based on the location of the customer, either within the store or en-route to the store. The queueing and management system may also separate the order input function from the order fulfillment and delivery functions. Wilkinson is directed to a system including: an electronic interface for receiving an order corresponding to a customer and permission for access to a customer's computing device having tracking software; a control circuit configured to: access the tracking software; determine driving patterns of the customer based on movement of the computing device along driving routes within a certain time period, the driving patterns including locations and corresponding times of day of the computing device along the driving routes; determine a shopping facility within a certain proximity to at least one location; transmit an invitation to the customer to pick up the order at the determined shopping facility; receive an acceptance to the invitation; and a shopping facility where the order is made available for pick up. Dhesi is directed to systems and methods of order fulfillment using a fulfillment engine, which optimizes the allocation of client or user orders to third party merchants for fulfillment through the use of linear programming or machine learning. This optimization occurs by loading a series of relevant merchant attributes and client attributes into an optimizer with the order and analyzing the attributes to determine an optimal allocation of client orders to third party merchants. Mao is directed to online ordering can be based on estimated delivery time and application thereof, the method for scheduled time T1 and obtaining the order by calling the historical order data of the merchant to calculate predicted error time R1; by calling the historical order data of different periods to calculate to obtain the order of the time section corresponding to processing prediction time T2 and predicted time error R2, finally calculating the order finally estimated processing completion time. Hoblit is directed to method for supporting coordination and collaboration of multiple users, such as shoppers, in an activity. Individual lists are organized, each list associated with a different participating user and including multiple entries promoting efficiency in the activity, each entry describing an item to be located and/or obtained by the user. Each list is accessible on an electronic device by each user, where a user can obtain or locate the items described on that user's list during the activity. Smith is directed toreceiving an order request from a customer, transmitting an order list from the order request to an employee of the store for a collection of products on the order list at the store by the employee, determining an estimated order collection time, continuously monitoring an estimated order pickup time for a delivery driver of a third-party delivery service, and, when the estimated order pickup time for the delivery driver is substantially equal to the estimated order collection time, transmitting a delivery request to the third-party delivery service requesting the delivery driver to pick up the products from the store and deliver the products to the delivery address.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights