DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to applicant’s amendments received 12/29/2025.
Claims 1, 13, and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-20 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 that like the claims in Desjardins, the present claims recite specific improvements to computer technology-specifically, improvements to how transaction systems and order management systems operate in retail environments. The present claims are not directed to merely performing calculations on generic computers, but rather recite a concrete solution to the technical problem of optimizing real-time order processing and fulfillment at in-store counters.
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 further notes that the additional elements have been fully considered, 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.
The applicant asserts that the present claims recite specific technical improvements to order processing systems: for Claim 1, the claim recites "configuring a transaction terminal that is associated with the in-store counter to manage the order based on real-time and historical transaction data to optimize order fulfillment workflow" combined with "the in-store order manager is configured to integrate with cloud processing environments to optimize real-time order processing and fulfillment" and "dynamically tracking picking of the order at the in-store counter and calculating a second completion time based on actual completion progress of the order." These elements, when considered together, recite a specific improvement to how transaction systems operate by dynamically optimizing order processing through integration of cloud environments with real-time transaction data and historical data analysis. This is not merely using a computer to perform abstract calculations but rather improving the transaction system's ability to process and fulfill orders in real-time while optimizing workflow. For Claim 13, the claim recites "employing an in-store order manager to dynamically update the pending order queue based on real-time transaction data" combined with "integrating an in-store order management with the transaction system to facilitate real-time order processing and fulfillment" and "tracking actual order fulfillment progress at the in-store counter and dynamically adjusting the estimated completion time based on actual progress." These elements recite improvements to how order management systems dynamically adjust and optimize order processing by integrating real-time fulfillment progress tracking with transaction systems, thereby improving the accuracy and efficiency of order completion time estimates. For Claim 19, the claim recites "configuring a transaction system associated with the store to manage the in-store counter items and optimize real-time order processing" combined with "the transaction system is integrated with cloud processing environments to optimize real-time order processing and fulfillment" and "tracking actual order fulfillment progress at the in-store counter and dynamically adjusting the estimated completion time based on actual progress." These elements recite improvements to transaction system operation through cloud integration and dynamic adjustment capabilities based on real-time fulfillment progress.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. 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.
The applicant asserts that the specification explicitly describes the technical problem being solved and the improvements provided by the claimed invention. As stated in the Background section of the specification: "There are many inefficiencies associated with the customer-assistance counters and their existing procedures...the attendants have no ability to plan or manage the peak periods and idle periods of their workflows because attendants are not clairvoyant and see into the future or predict the contents of future orders." The specification further describes the solution in the Summary section: "The orders are delivered to the transaction terminals operated by the attendants of the counters and placed in an order pending work queue of the terminals. An estimated wait time for the order to be completed is provided to the customer... Status updates are sent directly to the customer's mobile device providing status updates for their pending order. This changes the traditional workflow and processes associated with placing and fulfilling orders at in-store counters." The specification describes specific technical improvements to the transaction system's operation: "When the order is received, order/transaction manager 113 displays the order queue to the attendants at the in-store counter and inserts the order into the order queue with a waiting status ...When an attendant accepts the order for fulfilling, order/transaction manager 133 changes the order status from waiting to in-progress and reports to transaction system 143." These passages demonstrate that the claims are directed to improving the functioning of transaction systems and order management systems themselves, not merely using generic computers to perform abstract calculations.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the claims are directed to an abstract idea of managing and order fulfillment by reciting concepts managing interaction between two entities (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 examiner furthers notes that managing work queue, estimating wait time for the order to be completed is provided to the customer, and status updates are part of the abstract idea.
Next the examiner notes the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to interacting with a mobile application of a mobile device for a customer, notifying the customer through the mobile application, an in-store order management with the transaction system, a transaction system, sending a notification to a mobile device operated by a customer, a system, 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; using an application programming interface (API) from the transaction system, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises executable instructions; the transaction terminal is configured to integrated with an in-store order manager that dynamically updates a pending order queue based on real-time transaction data from a transaction system and the in-store order manager is configured to integrated with cloud processing environments to optimize real-time order processing and fulfillment based on the estimated completion time (recited at high level of generality), integrating an in-store order management with the transaction system to facilitate real-time order processing and fulfillment based on the estimated completion time (recited at high level of generality), the transaction system is integrated with cloud processing environments (recited at high level of generality), and the executable instructions when executed on the processor from the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium cause the processor to perform operations, and sending notifications to a mobile device operated by the customer. However, 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. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, 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. 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).
Applicant asserts that the Director's decision in Desjardins specifically criticized the Board for analyzing claims "at such a high level of generality" that it failed to recognize the technical improvements recited in the claims. The Examiner's rejection suffers from the same deficiency. The Examiner characterizes the claims as merely "managing interaction between two people" and "commercial interactions" performed using "generic computing elements." However, this characterization strips away the specific technical features that improve transaction system operation, including: 1. Integration of cloud processing environments with transaction systems to optimize real-time order processing; 2. Dynamic updating of pending order queues based on real-time transaction data; 3. Calculation of metrics from historical transaction information based on time of day, calendar day, and day of week; 4. Dynamic tracking and adjustment of completion times based on actual fulfillment progress; and 5. Coordination between mobile applications, in-store order managers, and transaction systems through API integration. These are not generic computer components performing abstract ideas, but rather specific improvements to how transaction systems process orders, estimate completion times, and coordinate fulfillment activities.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes unlike Desjardins, the present claims do not recite specific improvement to the machine learning model or other computer technology. Instead, 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. 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). 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.
Accordingly, an updated 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection will address applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection to claims have been considered, and they are found persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 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 1-12), 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 with a mobile application of a mobile device for a customer to obtain items associated with an order at an in-store counter of a store; estimating a completion time that the order is estimated to be fulfilled at the in-store counter; receiving a desired time for pickup of the order from the customer through the mobile application; configuring a transaction terminal that is associated with the in-store counter to manage the order based on real-time and historical transaction data to optimize order fulfillment workflow 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 integrated with an in-store order manager that dynamically updates a pending order queue based on real-time transaction data from a transaction system and the in-store order manager is configured to integrated with cloud processing environments to optimize real-time order processing and fulfillment based on the estimated completion time; wherein the in-store order manager obtains historical transaction information and real-time transactions using an application programming interface (API) from the transaction system and calculates metrics from the historical transaction information based on time of day, calendar day, and day of week to determine the estimated completion time; placing the order with the desired time on behalf of the customer at the transaction terminal that is associated with the in-store counter; updating a current status of the order with the transaction system as each item of the order is fulfilled at the in-store counter; dynamically tracking picking of the order at the in-store counter and calculating a second completion time based on actual completion progress of the order; and notifying the customer through the mobile application when a 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.
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 a first list of items from a second list of items based on an association of the first list of items with an in-store counter of a store and the second list of items associated with other items within the store other than the in-store counter; calculating an estimate completion time for the first list of items 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; employing an in-store order manager 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, and day of week to determine the estimated completion time: wherein the in-store manager is configured to integrate with cloud processing environments to optimize real-time order processing and fulfillment based on and the estimated completion time; integrating an in-store order management 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 order for the first list of items with the transaction terminal; updating a current status of the order with the transaction system as each item of the order is fulfilled at the in-store counter; monitoring the pending order queue for a change in a current status for the order; and sending a notification to a mobile device operated by a customer associated with the second list of items 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 in-store counter items in a shopping list of items associated with an in-store counter of a store, wherein the shopping list of items is associated with a customer of the store; estimating a completion time for the in-store counter items to be fulfilled at the in-store counter; configuring a transaction system associated with the store to manage the in-store counter items and optimize real-time order processing by: evaluating historical transaction data associated with historical orders; and 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, and day of week to determine the estimated completion time: wherein the transaction system is integrated with cloud processing environments to optimize real-time order processing and fulfillment based on an estimated completion time; updating a current status of each order with the transaction system as each item of each order is fulfilled at the in-store counter; integrating an in-store order management 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 order comprising the in-store counter items with a transaction system associated with the store; monitoring a current status of the order through the transaction system based on a pending order queue maintained for a transaction terminal located at the in-store counter by the transaction system; and sending 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 interacting with a mobile application of a mobile device for a customer, notifying the customer through the mobile application, an in-store order management with the transaction system, a transaction system, sending a notification to a mobile device operated by a customer, a system, 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; using an application programming interface (API) from the transaction system, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises executable instructions; the transaction terminal is configured to integrated with an in-store order manager that dynamically updates a pending order queue based on real-time transaction data from a transaction system and the in-store order manager is configured to integrated with cloud processing environments to optimize real-time order processing and fulfillment based on the estimated completion time (recited at high level of generality), integrating an in-store order management with the transaction system to facilitate real-time order processing and fulfillment based on the estimated completion time (recited at high level of generality), the transaction system is integrated with cloud processing environments (recited at high level of generality), and the executable instructions when executed on the processor from the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium cause the processor to perform operations, and sending notifications to a mobile device operated by the customer. However, 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. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, 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. 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 for a customer, using an application programming interface (API) from the transaction system, notifying the customer through the mobile application, an in-store order management with the transaction system, sending a notification to a mobile device operated by a customer, a transaction system, a system, 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, the in-store order manager is configured to integrate with cloud processing environments to optimize real-time order processing and fulfillment based on an estimated completion time(recited at high level of generality), the transaction system is integrated with cloud processing environments (recited at high level of generality), and sending notifications to a mobile device operated by the customer to implement the abstract idea. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [0018]- [0021]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, 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. 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 information via a user-facing interface of the mobile application, which amounts to collecting data; claim 4 recite providing a menu of available items for the in-store counter to the mobile application for the customer to select the items from the menu within the user-facing interface, claim 5 recite requesting the 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 completion time to the mobile application for presentation to the customer in a user-facing interface of the mobile application; claim 10 recite receiving the desired time from the mobile application; claim 11 recite sending notification to the customer; claims 14 receiving the second list of items from the mobile device when the mobile device is within a geofenced area of the store; claim 15 recite providing the estimated time… to the mobile device for a confirmation of the customer; claim 16 recite receiving a desired pickup time from the mobile device; claim 18 recite processing an Application Programming Interface (API) to place the order with a transaction system associated with the transaction terminal of the in-store counter; claim 20 recite placing the order with a desired pickup time … provided by the customer through a user-facing interface of the mobile device. these elements have been fully considered, 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. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [0018]-[0021]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, 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 1-20 are objected, but would be allowable, if they were amended in such a way to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the action.
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”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20010042024 A1
System to provide web-based sales involving storage facilities
Rogers, Theodore Gordon
US 7124098 B2
Online shopping system
Hopson; David B. et al.
US 20120209730 A1
MOBILE RESTAURANT ORDERING SYSTEM
Garrett; James M.
NPL
How to Shop Kroger Grocery Pickup | How to Shop at Kroger| Kroger
Kroger
US 20210181762 A1
FLEET MANAGMENT USER INTERFACE
Emily Zhao
US 20190108601 A1
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES FOR RAPID REORDERING
Tony Ke
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625