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 with the RCE entered 8/25/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/25/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 6, 7, 14 and 15 recite the limitation "the threshold" and “a threshold” to refer to multiple thresholds and it is unclear which threshold the limitation is directed making the metes and bounds of the claimed invention unclear. Specifically:
Claim 1 recites:
”a threshold distance” (line 19)
“the threshold distance” (lines 20, 30,33)
“a threshold” (lines 40 and 41)
“the threshold” (line 43, 43,)
Claim 6 recites:
“a threshold” (line 15)
“the threshold” (line 44, 45, 46, 47)
Claim 7 recites:
“a threshold distance” in line 3 to the second store (referring back to claim 6)
while claim 6 recites “proximity” to the second store
Claim 14 recites:
“a threshold” in line 16
“the threshold” in line 42 (twice), 43, 44
Claim 15 recites:
“a threshold distance” in line 3 to the second store (referring back to claim 14),
however, claim 6 recites “proximity” to the second store
Applicant should correct to clarify what a “threshold” is in reference to or how it is determined and consistently refer to the limitations (i.e. threshold distance or proximate to second store) to clarify the metes and bounds of the claims. The specification does not provide a relationship or steps to determine the thresholds nor proximate to second store and refer in general terms. Applicant should clarify.
Claims 2-5, 8-13 and 16-20 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. The claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-3, 7-8, 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 3, 8, and 16 duplicate the limitations “a latitude associated with the user computing device, a longitude associated with the user computing device, an accuracy associated with the location data,… timestamp data associated with the location data” in respective independent claims 1, 6 and 14.
Claims 7 and 15 duplicate the limitation “determining that the current location associated with the customer or the pickup entity is within a threshold distance to the second store” in respective independent claims 6 and 14.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 6 and 14 are directed to a system, a process and a product which are statutory categories of invention. Therefore, the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES) MPEP 2106.03.
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 6 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
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
The claims recite the steps of receiving a pickup order associated with a customer, the pickup order being directed to a first store at a first location, wherein the first store and a second store are chain stores that share a brand, central management, and standardized business practices; associating the pickup order with a user… associated with the customer or a pickup entity; monitoring a current location of the user … by receiving location data from the user …, wherein the location data includes at least one of …data, the location data further comprising a latitude associated with the user…, a longitude associated with the user … an accuracy associated with the location data, and timestamp data associated with the location data, and wherein the user …transmits the location data t… at predetermined intervals;
determining a threshold based at least in part on the pickup order … applied to user profile data comprising a previous instance in which the customer went to a wrong store; determining that the current location of the user … associated with the customer or a pickup entity is proximate to the second store at a second location based at least in part on the location data associated with the user …, map data including at least one of land boundary data of roads, buildings, or facilities, terrain data, latitude and longitude coordinates, or traffic data, and at least one of combo data, ingredient data, preference data, allergy data, discount data, membership data, or payment data associated with a user, wherein the managing …queries a map … stored … to compare the current location of the user … against stored geofence boundaries associated with the first store and the second store, each of the stored geofence boundaries representing a virtual perimeter for a real-world geographic area that is dynamically generated or matches a predefined set of boundaries; in response to determining that the current location of the user …associated with the customer or the pickup entity is proximate to the second store, determining , based at least in part on the location data and the map data, a first probability that the customer or the pickup entity is traveling to the first store and a second probability that the customer or the pickup entity is traveling to the second store; determining that the second probability is above the threshold or that the first probability is below the threshold; in response to determining that the second probability is above the threshold or that the first probability is below the threshold, automatically triggering the pickup order to be sent to a second … second store; sending a notification to the first … store to cancel the pickup order at the first store, the notification causing the first…to scan an order queue at the first store to determine whether a prepared portion of the pickup order can be used to fulfill another order in the order queue; and
automatically triggering a message to be sent to the user… indicating that the pickup order has been relocated to the second store, … .
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claim as a whole recites the series of steps instructing how to reroute a customer order, which is a cales activity and commercial interactions (order pick up instructions) and thus falls within the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations).
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.
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of how to instruct a customer to pick up an order in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (computing device, GPS data, sensor data, cellular location data, base station data, indoor positioning data, Wi-Fi beacon data, Bluetooth beacon data, network, machine learning, heuristics, data library, memory, text message, push notification, mobile application interface; claims 1 and 14 include processors and non transitory computer readable media) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing economic (order pick up) process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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).
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 or order pick up instructions 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.
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 Wallace et al. (US 2020025073 A1) in view of Rademaker (US 2016/0247113 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 16 and 14 (claims 1, 6 and 14 are similar/parallel related claims to system, method and product), Wallace et al. disclose 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 (see Wallace et al. para [0006]):
receiving a pickup order associated with a customer, the pickup order being directed to a first store at a first location, the first store having a first computing device associated with the first store, wherein the first store [and a second store are chain stores that share a brand, central management, and standardized business practices] (see Wallace et al. para [0002] ;
associating the pickup order with a user computing device associated with the customer or a pickup entity (see Wallace et al. para [0059] software app on end user device for ordering);
monitoring a current location of the user computing device associated with the customer or the pickup entity by receiving location data from the user computing device (see Wallace et al. para [0055] location tracking), wherein the location data includes at least one of Global Positioning System (GPS) data, sensor data, cellular location data comprising base station data, or indoor positioning data comprising Wi-Fi beacon data or Bluetooth beacon data, the location data (see Wallace et al. para [0055]”) further comprising a latitude associated with the user computing device, a longitude associated with the user computing device, an accuracy associated with the location data, and timestamp data associated with the location data (see Wallace et al. para [0006] timestamp data of location data ), and wherein the user computing device transmits the location data to a managing computing device via a network at predetermined intervals (see Wallace et al. para [0055] “location sensitive queues and wait-lists management where the system 300 includes portions for automatically determining both coarser and pinpointed respective locations (e.g., LocU1, . . . , LocUm) of respective mobile users (e.g., U1, U2, . . . , Um) using their respective personal mobile devices (e.g., 315, . . . , 31m) carried and/or worn by the users as the users traverse various areas including those serviced by cellular telephony base stations (e.g., cell towers 253a′—see also 253a of FIG. 2), serviced by GPS satellite constellations 253b′ (see also 253b of FIG. 2) and serviced by finer resolution, location determining means (e.g., scanners 327—see also 127, 127′, 127″ of FIG. 1). Although the present disclosure focuses mostly on Bluetooth™ based scanners, it is within the contemplation of the disclosure to use other types of scanners such as Wi-Fi ones” and [0056] “a Wi-Fi signal revealing the current GPS coordinates of the mobile device 315 as well as identifying the mobile device (e.g., by its currently assigned TID). This Wi-Fi signal can be routed out via the internet to a server (e.g., 340b) controlled by the establishment. Another of the BPSs is one which transmits a Wi-Fi signal revealing the current cellular telephony coordinates of the mobile device 315 as well as identifying the mobile device (e.g., by its currently assigned TID). This Wi-Fi signal can be routed out via the internet to a server (e.g., 340b) controlled by the establishment. The establishment controlled server (e.g., 340b) may then determine current coarse locations of the mobile device based on the received GPS and/or telephony information and store the results” );
determining a threshold distance to the second store at a second location, wherein the threshold distance is determined based at least in part on machine learning or heuristics applied to user profile data comprising a previous instance in which the customer [went to a wrong store], and further based at least in part on at least one of combo data, ingredient data, preference , 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, each of the stored geofence boundaries representing a virtual perimeter for a real-world geographic area that is dynamically generated or matches a predefined set of boundaries (see Wallace et al. figures 2 and 3 prediction models ; para [0056] “a Wi-Fi signal revealing the current GPS coordinates of the mobile device 315 as well as identifying the mobile device (e.g., by its currently assigned TID). This Wi-Fi signal can be routed out via the internet to a server (e.g., 340b) controlled by the establishment. Another of the BPSs is one which transmits a Wi-Fi signal revealing the current cellular telephony coordinates of the mobile device 315 as well as identifying the mobile device (e.g., by its currently assigned TID). This Wi-Fi signal can be routed out via the internet to a server (e.g., 340b) controlled by the establishment. The establishment controlled server (e.g., 340b) may then determine current coarse locations of the mobile device based on the received GPS and/or telephony information and store the results” );
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, terrain data, latitude and longitude coordinates, or traffic 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 (see Wallace et al. para [0058] “Server 340b may include or connect to an order management database which keeps track for each order-placing user (e.g., user Urn, where m is an integer) of: (a) the user's customer profile 34 m.1, (b) the details of the placed order 34 m.2; (c) a temporary and unique transaction identification sequence (TID) 34 m.3 assigned to the corresponding transaction; (d) a current hardware address (e.g., HAC) being currently used by the customer's personal mobile device (e.g., 31 m.4); (e) a current one or more coarse and comparatively more pinpointed locations 34 m.5 of where the recipient is determined to most likely be present at (e.g., in or near the establishment or further away); (f) information about the delivery status 34 m.6 of the requested goods and/or services that the present transaction is directed to”);
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, based at least in part on the location data and the map data, a first probability that the customer or the pickup entity is traveling to the first store and a second probability that the customer or the pickup entity is traveling to the [second ]store (see Wallace et al. para [0059] “) a software application (“app” 317) that automatically requests from the order managing server 340b, a list of nearest vendor venue locations, the menu of the items that may be ordered online and estimates for when the items will be ready for pick up at a selected one of the venues. In response to the request, enterprise software and hardware modules automatically identify the user, pull up a user profile (e.g., 34 m.1), store the order details (34 m.2), assign a temporary and unique transaction identification sequence (TID) 34 m.3 to the corresponding transaction (install it into a corresponding one or more BPSs) and inform the customer of a time range when he or she might arrive at the venue to pick up the order as well a specific location for the pickup “ and para [0036]) ;
determining that the second probability is above a threshold or that the first probability is below a threshold (see Wallace para [0058-9]);
in response to determining that the second probability is above the threshold or that the first probability is below the threshold, 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 (see Walace et al figure 2 and [0036] “in response to the first location revealing communication 282, the receiving end 271 makes a coarse first prediction 291 (Predict-1) about how long it will take the identified recipient (Um) to arrive at the planned provisioning spot (262f or 262g) based on the first location indicated by, and optionally on the velocity indicated by, the first communication 282. This first prediction 291 can be based on the calculated distance between the first indicated location 262a and the planned provisioning spot and on average traveling times by average recipients in navigating from the first indicated location 262a to the planned provisioning spot (262f or 262g) as optionally augmented by a given current velocity of the recipient's device 262. In one embodiment, arrival predictions like 291 may be further based on currently or generally known traffic conditions as automatically acquired from the internet or elsewhere. The coarse first prediction 291 (Predict-1) can be used to decide if a commitment to providing the requested goods/services should be made; and if yes, relaying back to the recipient's device 262 a first proposed appointment time or time window within which to expect delivery of the requested goods and/or services”);
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 (see Walace et al figure 2 and para [0036] “in response to the first location revealing communication 282, the receiving end 271 makes a coarse first prediction 291 (Predict-1) about how long it will take the identified recipient (Um) to arrive at the planned provisioning spot (262f or 262g) based on the first location indicated by, and optionally on the velocity indicated by, the first communication 282. This first prediction 291 can be based on the calculated distance between the first indicated location 262a and the planned provisioning spot and on average traveling times by average recipients in navigating from the first indicated location 262a to the planned provisioning spot (262f or 262g) as optionally augmented by a given current velocity of the recipient's device 262. In one embodiment, arrival predictions like 291 may be further based on currently or generally known traffic conditions as automatically acquired from the internet or elsewhere. The coarse first prediction 291 (Predict-1) can be used to decide if a commitment to providing the requested goods/services should be made; and if yes, relaying back to the recipient's device 262 a first proposed appointment time or time window within which to expect delivery of the requested goods and/or services”);
determining an estimated preparation time for preparing the pickup order based on a volume of the order (see Wallace et al. para [0037], figure 2);
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 (see Wallace et al. para [0048] “patrons whose respective orders/reservations/appointments are queued on a changing wait-list are automatically and repeatedly informed of changes on the list so that they may tailor their actions accordingly. The illustrated GUI 440 includes a notification 444 that there has been a change” and para [0053]);
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 (see Wallace abstract “here is a change of plans, the recipients are notified ahead of time so as to avoid last minute surprises or disappointment” and para [0039] “the instructions could have been changed to redirect the recipient elsewhere due to changed circumstances.”); and
sending a second message to the first computing device associated with the first store to cancel the pickup order, the second message causing the first computing device to scan an order queue at the first store to determine whether a prepared portion of the pickup order can be used to fulfill another order in the order queue thereby preventing unnecessary food preparation and reducing operational costs but does not specifically disclose a second store and the customer change in destination location is a change to a second location (store) of the same store (see Wallace et al. para [0044] prevention of wasted time and goods “instructs the recipient to advance to the planned provisioning spot (262f,g) accordingly. Alternatively, based on circumstances, the provisioning entity may elect to use transmission 277 to further delay the appointment time or time window or to even, if conditions necessitate it, cancel the order from their end or propose alternative substitutes” alternative substitutes is within the scope of second location/store).
Rademaker (US 2016/0247113 A1) teaches an order routing system adapting to customers showing up at the wrong location (see Rademaker [0151] “using one or more GPS-enabled mobile computing devices and/or locations, where one party is late to the meeting or where a specific period of time passes in delay between meeting of parties, time a party is waiting at a meeting location before the other party shows up, parties going to wrong places, or other discrepancies in time and/or place. The meeting can be coordinated by a geo-locational input on one end and a “checkout” or completion confirmation on the other. The system is configured to flag “problem meetings,” which are meetings wherein one or more parties using a mobile computing device to meet at a point in time and space where there are inconsistencies over activity, meeting point changes”).
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 Wallace et al. the ability to optimize pick up by using location re-routing based on location and other order data to update the pick-up location as taught by Rademaker because it increases efficiency in handling of orders and timely delivery to customers (see Rademaker para [0151]. 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.
Specifically as to Claim 2, 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 (see Wallace et al. as applied in claim 1 para [0039] change to redirect the recipient elsewhere).
Specifically as to Claims 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 (see Wallace et al. para [0020] “wireless receivers and correlating databases to determine locations of, advancement speeds of, and/or distances away (chronologically and/or spatially) of expected recipients from goods/services provisioning spots in both coarse and finer resolutions as the recipients make their way to such goods/services provisioning spots” para [0073] provides timestamp).
Specifically as to Claim 4, wherein the pickup order is associated with a priority (see Wallace et al. para [0051] assigned priority).
Specifically as to Claims 5 and 18, updating the location data in at least one of a predetermined period of time, in real-time, or in near real-time (see Wallace et al. para [0055] “configured for location sensitive queues and wait-lists management where the system 300 includes portions for automatically determining both coarser and pinpointed respective locations”).
Specifically as to Claims 7 and 15, determining that the current location associated with the customer or the pickup entity is within a threshold distance to the second store ((see Wallace et al. para [0055] “configured for location sensitive queues and wait-lists management where the system 300 includes portions for automatically determining both coarser and pinpointed respective locations”).
Specifically as to Claims 9 and 17, determining that the speed associated with the computing device is less than a speed threshold (see Wallace et al. para [0035] “communication 282 not only informs the receiving end 271 of the location of device 262 but also of its speed and yet more preferably also of its direction. When provided with information for determining the velocity of device 262, the receiving end 271 can determine if the recipient is already moving toward the initially planned provisioning area 262f or 262g or not and can make corresponding predictions about expected time of arrival (ETA)”).
Specifically as to Claims 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
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 (see claims 6 and 14 and Wallace et al. para [0044] “based on circumstances, the provisioning entity may elect to use transmission 277 to further delay the appointment time or time window or to even, if conditions necessitate it, cancel the order from their end or propose alternative substitutes”).
Specifically as to Claim 11, sending a notification to the first computing device associated with the first store to cancel or delay the pickup order (Wallace et al. para [0044] “based on circumstances, the provisioning entity may elect to use transmission 277 to further delay the appointment time or time window or to even, if conditions necessitate it, cancel the order from their end or propose alternative substitutes”).
Specifically as to Claims 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 (see Wallace et al. para [0039] redirect when circumstances change “the instructions could have been changed to redirect the recipient elsewhere due to changed circumstances”).
Specifically as to 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 (see Wallace et al. para [0051] assigned priority, para [0055] “location sensitive queues and wait-lists management where the system 300 includes portions for automatically determining both coarser and pinpointed respective locations (e.g., LocU1, . . . , LocUm) of respective mobile users (e.g., U1, U2, . . . , Um) using their respective personal mobile devices (e.g., 315, . . . , 31m) carried and/or worn by the users as the users traverse various areas including those serviced by cellular telephony base stations (e.g., cell towers 253a′—see also 253a of FIG. 2), serviced by GPS satellite constellations 253b′ (see also 253b of FIG. 2) and serviced by finer resolution, location determining means (e.g., scanners 327—see also 127, 127′, 127″ of FIG. 1). Although the present disclosure focuses mostly on Bluetooth™ based scanners, it is within the contemplation of the disclosure to use other types of scanners such as Wi-Fi ones”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding 35 USC 112(a), applicant's arguments and amendments have overcome the prior rejections. The response provided where to find support in the Specification.
35 U.S.C. § 101
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 claims do not cover interpersonal interactions or management of personal behavior associated with "marketing or sales activities or behaviors." Id. For example, amended claim 1 recites elements such as "monitoring a current location of the user computing device associated with the customer or the pickup entity by receiving location data from the user computing device," "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 the map data, a first probability that the customer or the pickup entity is traveling to the first store and a second probability that the customer or the pickup entity is traveling to the second store," "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," and "in response to determining that the second probability is above the threshold or that the first probability is below the threshold, automatically triggering the pickup order to be sent to the second store." Applicant respectfully submits that such elements related to geofence boundary comparison, probability determination, and automatic queue insertion are not directed to "advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors," and are therefore not recitations of an abstract idea in the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. (Remarks REM 16-17), Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 make 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.
The limitations identified (i.e. geofence boundaries ) are part of the additional elements and are considered in Step 2A prong 2, see above rejection analysis (see Step 2A prong 2). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of how to instruct a customer to pick up an order in a computer environment.
The claimed computer components (computing device, GPS data, sensor data, cellular location data, base station data, indoor positioning data, Wi-Fi beacon data, Bluetooth beacon data, network, machine learning, heuristics, data library, memory, text message, push notification, mobile application interface; claims 1 and 14 include processors and non transitory computer readable media) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing economic (order pick up) process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Applicant argues an ordered sequence and is an improvement to the determination of a device’s intended destination as between two candidate locations that raw proximity cannot distinguish (rem 18), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement to the abstract idea of customer order pick up with a technical solution is an improvement to the abstract idea and not to the functioning of the computer (improvement to location tracking and estimation of destination arrival timing).
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 argument to novelty, one must keep in mind that judicial exceptions need not be old or long prevalent, and that even newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were “‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.” (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591‐92 (1978); and Myriad Genetics, 133 S. Ct. at 2116, quoting Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Labs., 566 U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012).).
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. Hapgood et al. disclose a system for scheduling a pickup for a customer at a store and/or any other location in which customers may pick up previously ordered items.
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