DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of a computer system that solves a technical problem of storing specific data in a database in a specific format – specifically in the graph format listed in the claims. Applicant furthers these arguments by submitted a SMED. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The SMED makes a broad assertion of an improvement (e.g., data typically stored in database in form of tables which is format not suitable for training and updating machine learning models but data stored in graph format is suitable for training and updating a machine learning model). However, neither in the SMED or Applicant’s arguments was their provided any proof of this being a problem in the art. There is no evidence of this being a longstanding problem that data stored in table format is unsuitable for machine learning models vs. data stored in a graph format being suitable for the machine learning models. To be of probative value, any objective evidence should be supported by actual proof. See MPEP 716.01(c) & MPEP 2106.05(a). The SMED merely provides conclusory statements without providing evidence as to how the invention improved upon the state of the art and was actually improving the underlying technology. Examiner further notes that the item graph is simply retrieved from a database. There is nothing to suggest that the graph has been generated from a table in some sort of improved way. For at least these reasons, Examiner maintains the previous 35 USC 101 rejection.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This 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.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis the claims are directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-12, is directed to the process. Additionally, the computer program product, as claimed in claims 13-19, is directed to an apparatus. Finally, the system, as claimed in claim 20, is directed to a machine.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of determining foundational items for a user. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
Receiving from a client associated with a user, an order comprising a list of one or more items for delivery to a destination location from a warehouse
Identifying a set of item groupings from item groupings that match the list of one or more items, wherein each item grouping in the item groupings corresponds to a specific set of items;
Retrieving foundational items training data as an item graph including a plurality of interconnected nodes, each node of the plurality of nodes representing a corresponding foundational item, two nodes of the plurality of nodes sharing an edge in the item graph when both items represented by the nodes are in one or more item groupings, and a weight of each edge in the item graph connecting two corresponding nodes represents a number of item groupings that include both items represented by the two corresponding nodes;
Generating, using the foundational items training data as the item graph, a set of functions that relate inputs to the set of functions to a probability that an item associated with the inputs is a foundational item;
Applying information about the order and the set of item groupings to a model to generate a set of foundational items comprising one or more items in the list of one or more items;
Sending for display a foundational items graphic that visually distinguishes the set of foundational items from other items in the list of one or more items, and providing one or more options for the user to update the order, wherein the set of foundational items visually distinguished by the foundational items graphic is displayed at a top and higher relative to each of other items;
Receiving a selection indicating a selection of an instructions element of the plurality of instructions elements that is associated with an item of the other items;
Responsive to receiving the selection, sending for display a second updated display including text box for entering textual instructions that is opened in response to the selection;
Receiving data marking that an item of the other items is a foundational item;
Updating the item graph using information that the item is the foundational item and information hat the item is grouped with the set of foundational items;
Updating the set of functions of the model using updated foundational items training data represented by the updated item graph;
Applying the information about the order and the set of item groupings to the updated model to generate an updated set of foundational items comprising the one or more items and the item; and
Sending for display the plurality of instructions and a second foundational items that visually distinguishes the updated set of foundational items form remaining items in the list of items, the second foundational items graphic representing an updated box that surrounds the updated set of foundational items, wherein the updated set of foundational items including the item visually distinguished by the second foundational items graphic is displayed at a top and higher relative to the remaining items.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because receiving a list of items, identifying item groupings and foundational items, and presenting the information about the items is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a sales activity and/or relates to business relations. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as an online system, device, mobile application, user interface, database, machine learning model, updated user interface with first/second graphical element(s), a network, a signal, second/third updated user interface, text box associated with instructions graphical element. Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant's specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., providing item information) being applied on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components...‘ad[d] nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’... [and] [v]iewed as a whole...[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-12 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 2-9 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims include additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 1: a shopper client device (claim 5). However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic computer elements and are likewise described at a high level of specificity in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-12 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claim 1. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Thus, dependent claims 2-12 are also ineligible.
Independent claims 13 and 20 recite the same abstract idea represented in representative claim 1. Independent Claim 13 recites the additional elements of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and a processor. Independent Claim 20 recites the additional elements of a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The additional elements in Independent claims 13 and 20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Similarly, the dependent claims 14-19 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claims 2-12. Therefore, the additional elements to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claims 2-12, respectively.
Thus, dependent claims 14-19 are also ineligible.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
As discussed in the 03/28/2025 Office Action, Claims 1, 13, and 20 are free of prior art. Claims 2-12 and 14-19 would be free of prior art if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of subject matter free of prior art:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more thana predictable use of elements in the prior art. The features are as follows:
“apply, by the online system, the order and the set of item groupings to a machine learning model to produce a set of foundational items comprising one or more items from the list of items; sending for display, by the online system, to the device, an updated user interface comprising a foundational items graphical element that visually distinguishes the set of foundational items from other items in the list of items, and a plurality of instructions graphical elements, each of the plurality of instructions graphical elements associated with a respective item in the list of items and providing one or more options for the user to update the order; receiving, at the online system from the device and via the network, an instruction signal including a textual instruction to entered into the text box that an item of the other items associated with the instructions graphical element is a foundational item; updating, by the online system, the machine learning model using the received instruction signal; applying, by the online system, the order and the set of item groupings to the updated machine learning model to produce an updated set of foundational items comprising the one or more items and the item.”
One piece of pertinent prior art is Archak et al. (US 2021/0192596) disclosing receiving an order comprising a list of one or more items to delivery at a destination form a warehouse, identifying a set of item groupings form a database of item groupings that match the list of one or more items, applying the order and the set of groupings to a machine learning model to produce a set of foundational items comprising one or more items in the list of one or more items, sending for display an updated user interface comprising a foundational items graphical element that visually distinguishes the set of foundational items from other items in the list of one or more items. See at least Fig. 5 & 6, paragraph [0018], [0024], [0031], [0040]. Another piece of pertinent prior art is Sturm et al. (US 11,341,554) disclosing use of a machine learning model regarding item order deliveries and ability to update and retrain the model with new training datasets. See col 8, lns 54-57, col 9, lines 1-21, col 11, lns 40-52. Another piece of pertinent prior art is Hsiao et al. (US 11,282,126) disclosing ability to determine staple items based on user purchase history. See at least Fig. 7. Another piece of pertinent prior art is Koh (US 2020/0219606) disclosing graphical elements to select or deselect to put required items for purchase into the shopping list. See at least Fig. 13, paragraphs [0138]-[0142]. Another piece of pertinent prior art is NPL: “Optimal in-store fulfillment policies for online orders in an omni-channel retail environment” (Difrancesco, R.M., van Schilt, I.M. and Winkenbach, M., Optimal in-store fulfillment policies for online orders in an omni-channel retail environment, 2021, European Journal of Operational Research, 293(3), pp.1058-1076.) disclosing shopper concerns for online orders considering out of stock items and partial fulfillment of orders.
However, none of these pieces of prior art, nor any others expressly provide for apply, by the online system, the order and the set of item groupings to a machine learning model to produce a set of foundational items comprising one or more items from the list of items; sending for display, by the online system, to the device, an updated user interface comprising a foundational items graphical element that visually distinguishes the set of foundational items from other items in the list of items, and a plurality of instructions graphical elements, each of the plurality of instructions graphical elements associated with a respective item in the list of items and providing one or more options for the user to update the order; receiving, at the online system from the device and via the network, an instruction signal including a textual instruction to entered into the text box that an item of the other items associated with the instructions graphical element is a foundational item; updating, by the online system, the machine learning model using the received instruction signal; applying, by the online system, the order and the set of item groupings to the updated machine learning model to produce an updated set of foundational items comprising the one or more items and the item.
Note: Claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception(abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are not subject matter eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights