The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is in response to the amendments and arguments filed 3/23/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically as to claims 1, 6 and 14, the claims have been amended to include the new matter of “determining a first probability associated with intended travel to the first store and a second probability associated with intended travel to the second store instead of the first store based at least in part on the location data and the map data, wherein the second probability indicates a likelihood that the customer or the pickup entity has mistakenly traveled toward the second store instead of the first store” (amendment in bold). There is no support in the original disclosure for determining a probability includes a second probability indicates a likelihood that the customer or the pickup entity has mistakenly traveled toward the second store instead of the first store.
Claims 2-5, 7-13 and 15-20 inherit the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 6 and 14, respectively, and are therefore also rejected.
Examiner note: In light of the 35 USC 112 rejections, claims will be interpreted as best may be understood for the purposes of applying prior art.
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.
Step 1
Claims 1-5 are directed to a machine, claims 6-13 are directed to a process, and claims 14-20 are directed to an article of manufacture. Therefore, the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES) MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A
It is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Prong 1 of Step 2A
It is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea, including:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a pickup order associated with a customer, the pickup order including an unprepared order and being directed to a first store at a first location, the first store capable of preparing the unprepared order having a first computing device associated with the first store, wherein the first store and a second store share a same brand, ownership, or authorization and are each capable of preparing the unprepared order using standardized business practices;
associating the pickup order with a user computing device associated with the customer or a pickup entity;
monitoring a current location of the customer or the pickup entity by receiving location data from the user computing device wherein the location data includes at least one of Global Positioning System (GPS) data, cellular location data, or indoor positioning data and wherein the user computing device transmits the location data to a managing computing device via a network at predetermined intervals;
determining a threshold distance to a second store that is capable of preparing the unprepared order, wherein the threshold distance indicates an increased likelihood of the customer or the pickup entity intending to travel to the second store and is based at least in part on at least one of item data, combo data ingredient data, preference data, allergy data, discount data, membership data, or payment data associated with a user, wherein the managing computing device queries a map data library stored in memory to compare the current location of the user computing device against stored geofence boundaries associated with the first store and the second store;
determining, based at least in part on the location data and map data including at least one of land boundary data of roads, buildings, or facilities, that the current location of the user computing device associated with the customer or the pickup entity is within the threshold distance, the second store having a second computing device associated with the second store;
in response to determining that the current location of the user computing device associated with the customer or the pickup entity is within the threshold distance to the second store, determining a first probability associated with intended travel to the first store and a second probability associated with intended travel to the second store instead of the first store based at least in part on the location data and the map data, wherein the second probability indicates a likelihood that the customer or the pickup entity has mistakenly traveled toward the second store instead of the first store;
using the first probability and the second probability, automatically triggering the pickup order to be sent to the second store to reduce food waste by preventing order preparation at the first store when the customer is determined to be unlikely to arrive;
determining an estimated arrival time of the customer or the pickup entity at least based on the location data, the map data, and traffic data, the estimated arrival time being indicative of a time the customer or the pickup entity will arrive at the second store;
determining an estimated preparation time for preparing the pickup order based on a volume of the order;
sending a preparation instruction to the second computing device associated with the second store, the preparation instruction instructing the second store to start preparing the pickup order at least based on the estimated arrival time and the estimated preparation time to optimize order queue management and minimize customer wait times, wherein the preparation instruction causes the second computing device to automatically insert the pickup order into an order queue maintained by the second store based on the estimated arrival time and the estimated preparation time;
sending a first message to the user computing device indicating that the pickup order has been relocated to the second store wherein the first message is conveyed via at least one of a text message, push notification, or mobile application interface;
and sending a second message to the first computing device associated with the first store to cancel the pickup order thereby preventing unnecessary food preparation and reducing operational costs. [Judicial exception (Abstract idea) in bold]
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite commercial interactions (order pick up instructions). Claims 6 and 14 recite similar limitations as claim 1.
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Accordingly, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claims 1, 6, and 14 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES). MPEP 2106.04(a).
Prong 2 of Step 2A
It is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, a first computing device, a network, a second computing device, a user computing device, and mobile application interface. Claim 6 recites the additional elements of, a second computing device, a computing device, and mobile application interface. Claim 14 recites the additional elements of one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, one or more computing devices, a computing device, a second computing device, and mobile application interface. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Additionally, the independent claims merely invoke these additional elements as tools to perform the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). MPEP 2106.05(h). As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 6, and 14 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). MPEP 2106.04(d).
Furthermore, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 6, and 14 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claims 1, 6, and 14 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 6, and 14 are “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A prong 2, the claim describes how to generally “apply” the concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed separately and as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Dependent claims, 2-5, 7-13, and 15-20, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
More specifically, dependent claims, 2-5, 7-13, and 15-20, further fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite sales activities or behaviors. Claims 2-5, 7-13, and 15-20, do not introduce new additional elements and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, the dependent claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, and 15-20 are “directed to” an abstract idea.
Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 6, and 14, the dependent
claims analyzed individually, and as an ordered combination, merely invoke such
additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rademaker (U.S. 20130346237 A1) in view of Singh et al. (US 2022/0164858 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 6 and 14, Rademaker discloses a system (and related method and non transitory computer readable media) comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising (Rademaker see at least: “The engines or applications can be stored in any type of computer readable medium or computer storage device and be stored on and executed by one or more general purpose computers, thus creating a special purpose computer configured to provide the engine or application.” [0025] and “In its most basic configuration, the computing device 600 includes at least one processor 602 and a system memory 604 connected by a communication bus 606.” [0083]; [0061] “searches the determined retailer systems 106 for products associated with the set of product requests to determine potential retailers for one or more product requests”):
receiving a pickup order associated with a customer, the pickup order including an unprepared order and being directed to a first store capable of preparing the unprepared order at a first location, the first store having a first computing device associated with the first store (Rademaker see at least: “As another example, the customer interface engine 302 may be configured to help a customer create a product request by presenting a list of available products, accepting an order for a product, requesting a return, canceling an order, accepting payment for the order, and/or the like. As yet another example, the customer interface engine 302 may display prompts to help guide the customer to one or more curbside pickup locations, and/or may provide a communication interface to allow the customer to communicate with a retailer associated with a particular order.” [0039] and “The retailer system 106 may include one or more computing devices such as desktop computers, laptop computers, server computers, and/or the like. In some embodiments, the retailer system 106 receives orders from the logistics management system 104 and presents them in a preparation queue on a computing device located at the retailer, so that each order may be prepared by the retailer in time to be delivered to the appropriate customer when the customer arrives at a pickup location.”[0022], );
associating the pickup order with a user computing device associated with the customer or a pickup entity (Rademaker see at least: “In such embodiments, the customer may, for example, place an order or manage inventories with a desktop computer that executes portions of the customer interface engine 302, and may then use a mobile device such as a smart phone and/or the like to execute other portions of the customer interface engine 302 and the location engine 304 to further coordinate pickup of the order while enroute to the pickup location.” [0020]);
monitoring a current location of the customer or the pickup entity by receiving location data from the user computing device, wherein the location data includes at least one of Global Positioning System (GPS) data, cellular location data, or indoor positioning data (Rademaker see at least: “Once curbside pickup orders have been created, the follow-through tracking engine 216 monitors the progress of the customer along the predicted path of travel using, for example, a location service provider 110 and/or a location engine 304 of a customer computing device 102 associated with the customer” [0029]; GPS see para 17 and 23);
determining a threshold distance to a second store that is capable of preparing the unprepared order at a second location, wherein the threshold distance indicates an increased likelihood of the customer or the pickup entity intending to travel to the second store to perform a pickup at the second location instead of the first location and is based at least in part on at least one of item data, combo data, ingredient data, preference data, allergy data, discount data, membership data, or payment data associated with a user (Rademaker see at least: “The set of retailers may be determined based on retailer locations stored in the retailer data store 422, and may be chosen by comparing the retailer locations to one or more appointment locations, one or more time point locations, and/or the like. In some embodiments, pickup locations associated with the retailers may be used instead of or in addition to the retailer locations. In some embodiments, the retailer may be selected if the associated retailer location or pickup location is on the predicted path, if the associated retailer location or pickup location is within a certain distance of the predicted path, if the predicted path can be altered to go past the retailer location or pickup location without altering the total time or distance of the predicted path any more than a predetermined threshold time or distance, if the predicted path can be altered to go past the retailer location or pickup location without missing a subsequent appointment, and/or using any other suitable criteria.” [0060], and use item data [0061] “searches the determined retailer systems 106 for products associated with the set of product requests to determine potential retailers for one or more product requests”);
determining, based at least in part on the location data and map data including at least one of land boundary data of roads, buildings, or facilities, that the current location of the user computing device associated with the customer or the pickup entity is within the threshold distance, the second store having a second computing device associated with the second store (Rademaker see at least: “the retailer may be selected if the associated retailer location or pickup location is on the predicted path, if the associated retailer location or pickup location is within a certain distance of the predicted path, if the predicted path can be altered to go past the retailer location or pickup location without altering the total time or distance of the predicted path any more than a predetermined threshold time or distance, if the predicted path can be altered to go past the retailer location or pickup location without missing a subsequent appointment, and/or using any other suitable criteria.” [0060] and “Once curbside pickup orders have been created, the follow-through tracking engine 216 monitors the progress of the customer along the predicted path of travel using, for example, a location service provider 110 and/or a location engine 304 of a customer computing device 102 associated with the customer” [0029] “The retailer system 106 may include one or more computing devices such as desktop computers, laptop computers, server computers, and/or the like. In some embodiments, the retailer system 106 receives orders from the logistics management system 104 and presents them in a preparation queue on a computing device located at the retailer, so that each order may be prepared by the retailer in time to be delivered to the appropriate customer when the customer arrives at a pickup location.”[0022]);
using the first probability and the second probability, automatically triggering the pickup order to be sent to the second store (Rademaker see at least: “Once the response to the message requesting the better offer is received, the method 400 proceeds to block 448, where, if the retailer did not present a better offer than the online offer, the retail negotiation engine 212 checks other potential retailers for better offers than the online offer. In some cases, the previous retailer may have been chosen due to proximity to the predicted path, a non-binding customer preference, or some other reason that prioritized the previous retailer over other eligible retailers that provide the product. If so, the retail negotiation engine 212 may choose another of these eligible retailers.” [0066] and “At block 450, if the retail negotiation engine 212 finds a better offer for the product at a potential retailer (or if no online offer was available), a pickup management system 301 creates a curbside pickup order for the product at the potential retailer, and at block 452, the retail negotiation engine 212 stores the curbside pickup order in the customer data store 220.” [0067]);
determining an estimated arrival time of the customer or the pickup entity at least based on the location data, the estimated arrival time being indicative of a time the customer or the pickup entity will arrive at the second store (Rademaker see at least: “The arrival prediction engine 306 may then use the location information to predict a time of arrival for the customer at one or more pickup locations.” [0041];
determining an estimated preparation time for preparing the pickup order (Rademaker see at least: “If the customer may arrive before the product is ready for pickup (such as, for example, if the customer is ten minutes away from a retailer that offers a product that requires a minimum of fifteen minutes of preparation time), the button may be greyed-out or otherwise disabled until the retailer has enough time to have the product ready by the time the customer is expected to arrive.” [0043]);
sending a preparation instruction to the second computing device associated with the second store, the preparation instruction instructing the second store to start preparing the pickup order at least based on the estimated arrival time and the estimated preparation time to optimize order queue management and minimize customer wait times (Rademaker see at least: “In some embodiments, rescheduling the curbside pickup may include transmitting a notification by the pickup management system 301 to the retailer system 106 to allow the prep queue management engine 320 to reschedule preparation of the product as appropriate for the newly expected time of arrival.” [0071]);
sending a first message to the user computing device indicating that the pickup order has been relocated to the second store (Rademaker see at least: “If the same product is available later along the predicted path from a different retailer, the follow-through tracking engine 216 may cancel the original curbside pickup in favor of a new curbside pickup of the same product from a different retailer. If no rescheduled or new pickup can replace the original curbside pickup that will be missed, the follow-through tracking engine 216 may simply cause the curbside pickup to be canceled and removed from the predicted path … In some embodiments, upon detecting that the customer is unlikely to complete a curbside pickup, the follow-through tracking engine 216 may cause a message to be transmitted to the customer to verify that the pickup will be rescheduled. [0071]);
and sending a second message to the first computing device associated with the first store to cancel the pickup order (Rademaker see at least: “If a substantially different arrival time is predicted, the arrival prediction engine 306 may notify the follow-through tracking engine 216 or other components of the logistics management system 104 so that future scheduled curbside pickup orders may be rescheduled, modified, or canceled as appropriate.” [0041] and “If the same product is available later along the predicted path from a different retailer, the follow-through tracking engine 216 may cancel the original curbside pickup in favor of a new curbside pickup of the same product from a different retailer. If no rescheduled or new pickup can replace the original curbside pickup that will be missed, the follow-through tracking engine 216 may simply cause the curbside pickup to be canceled and removed from the predicted path” [0071]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the first store and a second store share a same brand, ownership, or authorization and are each capable of preparing the unprepared order using standardized business practices, transmitting location data to a managing computing device via a network at predetermined intervals; query a map data library to compare the current location of the user computing device against stored geofence boundaries associated with the first store and the second store; determining, based at least in part on the location data, that the current location of the user computing device associated with the customer or the pickup entity is within the threshold distance, the second store having a second computing device associated with the second store; in response to determining that the current location associated with the customer or the pickup entity is within the threshold distance to the second store, determining a first probability associated with intended travel to the first store and a second probability associated with intended travel to the second store instead of the first store based at least in part on the location data and the map data, wherein the second probability indicates a likelihood that the customer on the pickup entity has mistakenly traveled toward the second store instead of the first store [using machine learning algorithms trained on historical customer movement patterns and order fulfillment data is disclosed by Rademaker in paragraph 5]; using the first probability and the second probability, automatically triggering the pickup order to be sent to the second store to reduce food waste by preventing order preparation at the first store when the customer is determined to be unlikely to arrive; and wherein the preparation instruction causes the second computing device to automatically insert the pick-up order into an order Que maintained by the second store based on the estimated arrival time and the estimated preparation time. .
Singh et al. teaches a processing system for order routing and redirecting for fulfillment processing including wherein the first store and a second store are chain brands (see Singh et al. para 0013; same brand see para 0036); monitoring a current location of the user computing device transmitting location data at period intervals (see Singh et al. para 0032); comparing location to boundaries (see Singh et al. para 0028, predefined zone and geographic range); the current location is with the threshold distance (see Singh et al. optimizer ranking para 0032, 0036 and 0022 redirect, optimizing and re-ranking store locations); determining probability using the machine learning of Rademaker and Singh et al. predictive modeling see para 0030 and 0028)automatically triggering the pick up order to be sent to the second store (optimizer redirects to optimal see para 0032 Sing et al.) and automatically inserting the pickup order in an order que (see Sing et al, para 32, “optimizer”).
These known techniques are applicable to the method of Rademaker as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a system for optimizing pickup location selection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the order pick up optimization system of Rademaker et al. the ability to optimize pick up by using location and other order data to update the pick-up location as taught by Singh et al. because it increases efficiency in handling of orders and timely delivery to customers (see Singh et al. para 0001). In addition, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. A person of ordinary skill would have understood prior art teachings, or what a person of ordinary skill would have known or could have done.
Regarding Claim 2, 7 and 15, the operations further comprising sending a rerouting instruction to the user computing device, the rerouting instruction indicating a route from the current location associated with the customer or the pickup entity to the second store (Rademaker see at least: “the retailer may be selected if the associated retailer location or pickup location is on the predicted path, if the associated retailer location or pickup location is within a certain distance of the predicted path, if the predicted path can be altered to go past the retailer location or pickup location without altering the total time or distance of the predicted path any more than a predetermined threshold time or distance, if the predicted path can be altered to go past the retailer location or pickup location without missing a subsequent appointment, and/or using any other suitable criteria.” [0060] and “For example, in some embodiments, the predicted path information and purchase history information for a customer may be used to push advertisements for products to the customer computing device 102 for presentation along with the direction information.” [0081]).
Regarding Claim 3, 8 and 16, wherein the location data include at least one of a latitude associated with the user computing device, a longitude associated with the user computing device, an accuracy associated with the location data, a speed associated with the user computing device, or timestamp data associated with the location data (Rademaker see at least: “the follow-through tracking engine 216 may determine, based on traffic, a method of travel, a current speed and location, and/or the like, whether the customer will be able to arrive at next curbside pickup in the predicted path at the predicted time of arrival” [0070].
Regarding Claim 4, wherein the pickup order is associated with a priority (Rademaker see at least: “managing a position of a customer within a queue for a resource at a retailer is provided. A computing device adds an entry associated with the customer to the queue for the resource at a retailer. The computing device monitors a current location and a direction of travel of the customer. The position of the entry in the queue is updated based on the current location and the direction of travel of the customer” [0006]).
Regarding Claim 5 and 18, the operations further comprising updating the location data in at least one of a predetermined period of time, in real-time, or in near real-time (Rademaker see at least: “The computing device monitors a current location and a direction of travel of the customer. The position of the entry in the queue is updated based on the current location and the direction of travel of the customer” [0006]).
Regarding Claim 9 and 17, wherein determining that the current location associated with the customer or the pickup entity is proximate to the second store comprises determining that the speed associated with the computing device is less than a speed threshold (Rademaker see at least: “Other sources of information, such as traffic information, weather information, an average speed of travel of the customer or the customer's vehicle, and/or the like, may also be used in generating the predicted arrival time.” [0041] and “the follow-through tracking engine 216 may determine, based on traffic, a method of travel, a current speed and location, and/or the like, whether the customer will be able to arrive at next curbside pickup in the predicted path at the predicted time of arrival.” [0070] The tracking engine makes a decision based off of a certain, threshold, speed that will make the customer late and reschedules pickup).
Regarding Claim 10 and 19, sending a third message to the computing device indicating that the computing device is proximate to the second store rather than the first store (Rademaker see at least: “The arrival prediction engine 306 may be configured to recalculate the predicted arrival time upon receipt of further information, such as a detection of a variance of a location of the customer from the predicted path of travel, detection of a spontaneous and/or unplanned stop, a re-sorting of stop orders, and/or the like. If a substantially different arrival time is predicted, the arrival prediction engine 306 may notify the follow-through tracking engine 216 or other components of the logistics management system 104 so that future scheduled curbside pickup orders may be rescheduled, modified, or canceled as appropriate.” [0041] and “In some embodiments, pickup locations associated with the retailers may be used instead of or in addition to the retailer locations. In some embodiments, the retailer may be selected if the associated retailer location or pickup location is on the predicted path, if the associated retailer location or pickup location is within a certain distance of the predicted path, if the predicted path can be altered to go past the retailer location or pickup location without altering the total time or distance of the predicted path any more than a predetermined threshold time or distance, if the predicted path can be altered to go past the retailer location or pickup location without missing a subsequent appointment, and/or using any other suitable criteria.” [0060]);
and receiving, from the computing device, data indicative of at least one of: a confirmation that the customer or the pickup entity will travel to the first store; or a selection to relocate the pickup order to the second store (Rademaker see at least: “In some embodiments, pickup locations associated with the retailers may be used instead of or in addition to the retailer locations. In some embodiments, the retailer may be selected if the associated retailer location or pickup location is on the predicted path, if the associated retailer location or pickup location is within a certain distance of the predicted path, if the predicted path can be altered to go past the retailer location or pickup location without altering the total time or distance of the predicted path any more than a predetermined threshold time or distance, if the predicted path can be altered to go past the retailer location or pickup location without missing a subsequent appointment, and/or using any other suitable criteria.” [0060] and “The arrival prediction engine 306 may use a path generated by the direction management engine 312, generated by the mapping service provider 112, specified by the customer, generated by the customer path prediction engine 218, or from some other source along with the current location of the customer to determine the predicted arrival time.” [0041] The customer is able to specify the path taken, so they have ability to select to relocate the order).
Regarding Claim 11, sending a notification to a computing device associated with the first store to cancel or delay the pickup order (Rademaker see at least: “The arrival prediction engine 306 may be configured to recalculate the predicted arrival time upon receipt of further information, such as a detection of a variance of a location of the customer from the predicted path of travel, detection of a spontaneous and/or unplanned stop, a re-sorting of stop orders, and/or the like. If a substantially different arrival time is predicted, the arrival prediction engine 306 may notify the follow-through tracking engine 216 or other components of the logistics management system 104 so that future scheduled curbside pickup orders may be rescheduled, modified, or canceled as appropriate.” [0060]).
Regarding Claim 12 and 20, sending a rerouting instruction to the computing device, the rerouting instruction indicating a route from the current location associated with the customer or the pickup entity to the second store (Rademaker see at least: “In some embodiments, pickup locations associated with the retailers may be used instead of or in addition to the retailer locations. In some embodiments, the retailer may be selected if the associated retailer location or pickup location is on the predicted path, if the associated retailer location or pickup location is within a certain distance of the predicted path, if the predicted path can be altered to go past the retailer location or pickup location without altering the total time or distance of the predicted path any more than a predetermined threshold time or distance, if the predicted path can be altered to go past the retailer location or pickup location without missing a subsequent appointment, and/or using any other suitable criteria.” [0060]).
Regarding Claim 13, wherein the pickup order is associated with a priority, the method further comprising: inserting the pickup order into an order queue based on the priority (Rademaker see at least: “managing a position of a customer within a queue for a resource at a retailer is provided. A computing device adds an entry associated with the customer to the queue for the resource at a retailer. The computing device monitors a current location and a direction of travel of the customer. The position of the entry in the queue is updated based on the current location and the direction of travel of the customer” [0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that the Claims are self-evident as patent eligible as they recite a method that does not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it. Applicant argues that the Claims are prima facie not directed to an abstract idea as they are directed towards statutory categories of invention. They also argue that the Claims are self-evident as patent eligible because they clearly improve a technology or computer functionality. (REM 12-13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Claims do not qualify for a streamlined analysis because the eligibility of the Claims is not self-evident. The limitations of the Claims, directed towards the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity do not sufficiently limit its practical application in such a way that does not tie up the judicial exception, and so a full eligibility analysis is required. While the pending claims are directed towards statutory categories of inventions, they are directed towards the abstract idea as they are directed towards “Certain methods of organizing human activity”. In addition, while amended Claim 1 includes the additional elements of one or more processors, a network one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, a first computing device, a second computing device, a user computing device, and the triggering being done automatically, these additional elements do not provide a technological improvement as generic computer components are able to receive a pickup order, send notifications, track location, and determine a pickup location. The additional elements do not represent an improvement to the computer components as they are recited at a high level of generality. They amount to nothing more than mere instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Applicant argues under Step 2A of Prong 1 that the Claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they do not recite a certain method of organizing human activity. Applicant argues that the elements related to tracking and analyzing location data are not directed to “advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Applicant submits that the limitations directed towards determining the intent of the user to travel to a second store instead of a first store is not a “commercial interaction” and would not manage or organize the human’s personal behavior. Applicant argues that because the claims do not recite elements that manage or organize human activity, that the recited claim elements should be interpreted as additional elements (Remarks REM 13-16).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Claims are directed towards the “Certain Methods
of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite a method, system, and a
computer readable storage medium for receiving pickup orders, sending a user a notification, sending a store notifications so that the order can be prepared, tracking user location, and determining an order pickup location (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Therefore, the device tracking and notifications facilitate a sales activity and are therefore directed towards the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations of determining the intent of the customer to travel to a second store instead of a first store are used in order to determine a pickup location, so that a customer can retrieve their order and are therefore directed towards a commercial interaction. Furthermore, the device tracking is used to making a decision based off of user behavior, such as their current location and location history. These limitation are therefore directed towards managing personal behavior (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).II.C.). Because the claim elements are directed towards an abstract idea, they cannot be interpreted as additional elements. While the claims do recite the additional elements of one or more processors, a network one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, a first computing device, a second computing device, a user computing device, and the triggering being done automatically, these additional elements and those listed in the examiner’s rejection above are recited at a high level of generality. They amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware.
Further, Applicant argues that using location data to determine probable intent could not be practically performed by a human. Applicant therefore submits that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea. (REM 15-21).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has not argued mental process and has provided the location data is recited at a high level and merely being applied by a generic computer environment.
Applicant also submits that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (REM 21). Applicant argues that the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (REM 16-20). Specifically, that the claimed techniques improve pickup entity tracking and estimation, allow the automated system to determine and adapt to human intents. Applicant also submits that the creation of accurate and efficient tracking of users and pickup entities is a technical field rather than a business field and is therefore an improvement to a technical field. Additionally, the accuracy and technical improvements are technical improvements and not improvements to “certain methods of organizing human activity”. (REM 16-20).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvements listed are not technical improvements, but are rather improvements to a business method since they are directed to a user picking up their order. In addition, while amended Claim 1 includes the additional elements of one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, a first computing device, a second computing device, a network a user computing device, and the triggering being done automatically, these additional elements do not provide a technological improvement as generic computer components are able to track a pickup entity and make determinations of human intent based off of user data. The creation of accurate and efficient tracking of users is used to facilitate a sales activity, picking up an order. Therefore, it is not a technical improvement alone. Overall, the additional elements do not represent an improvement to the computer components as they are recited at a high level of generality. They amount to nothing more than mere instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Applicant also submits that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant argues that the claims provide distinct improvements to the functioning of computers and the technical field of automated pickup entity tracking and intent estimation. (REM 21).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvements listed are not technical improvements, but are rather improvements to a business method since they are directed to a user picking up their order. While the Claims recite the additional elements of one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, a first computing device, a second computing device, a user computing device, a network and the triggering being done automatically, these additional elements and those listed in the examiner’s rejection above, are recited at a high level of generality. They amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware. The claims are routine and conventional as the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and therefore do not provide enough detail of the functional components of the interface in the method, system, or computer-readable storage medium.
With regards to applicant’s arguments with regards to the relation of the instant to a PTAB decision, PTAB decisions are case specific and cannot be used to create the basis for an argument unless the decision is precedential.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
In response to applicant's argument that Farmer is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Farmer is trying to solve the reasonable pertinent particular problem of optimization of pickup paths.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rademaker et al. discloses an order optimization with updating the order based on customer change in location. Elston et al. disclose a remote ordering system for mobile commerce.
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 Kelly Campen whose telephone number is (571)272-6740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-3pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
Kelly S. Campen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights