DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 September 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, see Amendment (“Response”), filed 30 September 2025, have been fully considered but do not overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. Applicant failed to provide any arguments in the Response. A new ground of rejection is made in view of amendments applied in the Response.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“post-filter; and” should be --post-filter;-- (claim 1, line 25); and
“causing the to share” should be --causing the at least one self-service ordering kiosk to share-- (claim 10, line 6).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-10 are directed to receiving communication, determining a first and second vendor, sending an order to a bucket/queue, sending the order to a filter, initiating communication with first and second vendor and causing first and second vendor to fulfill order, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process and machine.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method for managing a customer ordering point that is connected to a plurality of vendor systems, the method comprising:
connecting at least one self-service ordering kiosk to a vendor management device;
connecting the vendor management device to at least a first point of sale system and a second point of sale system;
at the vendor management device:
receiving an electronic communication including a first order having a first plurality of order components, wherein a first order component requires fulfillment from the first point of sale system and a second order component requires fulfillment from the second point of sale system;
determining, utilizing a prefilter and from information in the first order that the first order component should be fulfilled from the first point of sale system and the second order component should be fulfilled by the second point of sale system;
sending the first order to a bucket, which operates on the order, utilizing one or more predetermined priority criteria, to assign a first priority to the first order component and a second priority to the second order component;
sending the first order to a post-filter, which determines, utilizing one or more predetermined delivery criteria, timing with which to send first order component and second order component to the first system and second point of sale system;
initiating communication with the first point of sale system and the second point of sale system in accordance with the timing determined by post-filter; and
instructing the first point of sale system to fulfill the first order component and the second point of sale system to fulfill the second order component;
at least the first point of sale system, fulfilling the first order component; and
at least the second point of sale system, fulfilling the second order component.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a plurality of vendor systems (i.e. a first point of sale system and a second point of sale system, which are not necessarily physical components/devices) and a vendor management device nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the plurality of vendor systems language, “receiving an electronic communication including a first order having a first plurality of order components, wherein a first order component requires fulfillment … and a second order component requires fulfillment …; sending the first order to a bucket, which operates on the order, utilizing one or more predetermined priority criteria, to assign a first priority to the first order component and a second priority to the second order component; sending the first order to a post-filter, which determines, utilizing one or more predetermined delivery criteria, timing with which to send first order component and second order component …; initiating communication … in accordance with the timing determined by post-filter; and instructing … to fulfill the first order component and … to fulfill the second order component; …fulfilling the first order component; and … fulfilling the second order component” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “determining, utilizing a prefilter and from information in the first order that the first order component should be fulfilled … and the second order component should be fulfilled …” in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites three additional elements – a plurality of vendor systems (i.e. a first point of sale system and a second point of sale system, which are not necessarily physical components/devices) and a vendor management device. The plurality of vendor systems and vendor management device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the determining, sending, initiating and instructing steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the receiving step). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a plurality of vendor systems and a vendor management device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the plurality of vendor systems and vendor management device are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0019694 A1 to Dhesi et al. (“Dhesi”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0240181 A1 to Lopez et al. (“Lopez”) and United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0151355 A1 to Abromovitz et al. (“Abromovitz”).
As per claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Dhesi includes:
A method for managing a customer ordering point that is connected to a plurality of vendor systems, the method comprising (Dhesi: Abstract and Figs. 1B and 3):
a vendor management device (Dhesi: Fig. 1B, 20);
connecting the vendor management device to at least a first point of sale system and a second point of sale system (Dhesi: Fig. 1B, 32);
receiving an electronic communication including a first order having a first plurality of order components, wherein a first order component requires fulfillment from a first point of sale system and a second order component requires fulfillment from a second point of sale system (Dhesi: ¶¶ 0031, 0072 and 0073);
determining, utilizing a prefilter and from information in the first order that the first order component should be fulfilled from the first point of sale system and the second order component should be fulfilled by the second point of sale system (Dhesi: ¶¶ 0031, 0072 and 0073);
initiating communication with the first point of sale system and the second point of sale system (Dhesi: ¶¶ 0031, 0072, 0073 and 0078); and
instructing the first point of sale system to fulfill the first order component and the second point of sale system to fulfill the second order component (Dhesi: ¶¶ 0031, 0072, 0073 and 0078);
at the first point of sale system, fulfilling the first order component (Dhesi: ¶¶ 0031, 0072, 0073 and 0078-0080); and
at the second point of sale system, fulfilling the second order component (Dhesi: ¶¶ 0031, 0072, 0073 and 0078-0080).
Dhesi fails to specifically teach 1.) sending the first order to a bucket, which operates on the order, utilizing one or more predetermined priority criteria, to assign a first priority to the first order component and a second priority to the second order component; 2.) sending the first order to a post-filter, which determines, utilizing one or more predetermined delivery criteria, timing with which to send first order component and second order component to the first vendor system and second order system; 3.) initiating communication with the first vendor system and the second vendor system in accordance with the timing determined by post-filter and 4.) connecting at least one self-service ordering kiosk to a vendor management device. The Examiner provides Lopez to teach and disclose claimed features 1-3.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Lopez includes:
sending the first order to a bucket, which operates on the order, utilizing one or more predetermined priority criteria, to assign a first priority to the first order component and a second priority to the second order component (Lopez: ¶¶ 0021-0022 “service provider 102 may aggregate the order 116 with other previously received orders 116, which may include orders 116 for the delivery of items to be fulfilled by various merchants 110. For example, the aggregated orders 116 may be included in an order queue that includes items that are to be fulfilled by merchants 110 and delivered to customers… the service provider 102 may prioritize the orders (e.g., prioritized orders 120) within the order queue” and 0040-0042);
sending the first order to a post-filter, which determines, utilizing one or more predetermined delivery criteria, timing with which to send first order component and second order component to the first system and second point of sale system (Lopez: ¶¶ 0022-0023 and 0040-0045); and
initiating communication with the first point of sale system and the second point of sale system in accordance with the timing determined by post-filter (Lopez: ¶¶ 0023 and 0040-0045)
Dhesi teaches an order fulfillment method. Lopez teaches a comparable order fulfillment method that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Lopez offers the embodiment of sending the first order to a bucket, which operates on the order, utilizing one or more predetermined priority criteria, to assign a first priority to the first order component and a second priority to the second order component; sending the first order to a post-filter, which determines, utilizing one or more predetermined delivery criteria, timing with which to send first order component and second order component to the first vendor system and second order system; and initiating communication with the first vendor system and the second vendor system in accordance with the timing determined by post-filter. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the filters and prioritization as disclosed by Lopez to the order fulfillment method as taught by Dhesi for the predicted result of improved order fulfillment methods. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Dhesi and Lopez fail to specifically teach 4.) connecting at least one self-service ordering kiosk to a vendor management device. The Examiner provides Abromovitz to teach and disclose claimed features 1-3.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Abromovitz includes:
connecting at least one self-service ordering kiosk to a vendor management device (Abromovitz: ¶¶ 0027-0031 and 0059-0065 and Fig. 1C, 101 and 112 and Fig. 1B)
Dhesi and Lopez teach order fulfillment methods. Abromovitz teaches a comparable order fulfillment method that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Abromovitz offers the embodiment of connecting at least one self-service ordering kiosk to a vendor management device. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the self-service ordering kiosk as disclosed by Abromovitz to the order fulfillment methods as taught by Dhesi and Lopez for the predicted result of improved order fulfillment methods. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 2, the claimed subject matter that is met by Dhesi, Lopez and Abromovitz includes:
receiving a second order that includes a second plurality of order components (Dhesi: Abstract).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Dhesi, Lopez and Abromovitz are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 3, the claimed subject matter that is met by Dhesi, Lopez and Abromovitz includes:
utilizing at least one predetermined criteria to determine priority of the first order relative to the second order (Lopez: ¶¶ 0022-0023 and 0040-0045)
The motivation for combining the teachings of Dhesi, Lopez and Abromovitz are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 8, the claimed subject matter that is met by Dhesi, Lopez and Abromovitz includes:
wherein determining comprises dynamically analyzing the first order component and the second order component to determine that the first order component should be fulfilled by the first point of sale system and the second order component should be fulfilled by the second point of sale system (Dhesi: ¶ 0020).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Dhesi, Lopez and Abromovitz are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 9, the claimed subject matter that is met by Dhesi, Lopez and Abromovitz includes:
wherein determining comprises extracting information from the electronic communication to determine that the first order component should be fulfilled by the first point of sale system and the second order component should be fulfilled by the second point of sale system (Dhesi: ¶ 0070).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Dhesi, Lopez and Abromovitz are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
Claim 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhesi in view of Lopez and Abromovitz as applied in claim 1, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0292664 A1 to Gilfoyle (“Gilfoyle”).
As per claim 4, Dhesi, Lopez and Abromovitz fail to specifically wherein utilizing the at least one predetermined criteria comprises selecting the first order to have priority over the second order because it was received first. The Examiner provides Gilfoyle to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Gilfoyle includes:
wherein utilizing the at least one predetermined criteria comprises selecting the first order to have priority over the second order because it was received first (Gilfoyle: ¶¶ 0017 and 0052).
Dhesi, Lopez and Abromovitz teach order fulfillment methods. Gilfoyle teaches a comparable order fulfillment method that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Gilfoyle offers the embodiment of wherein utilizing the at least one predetermined criteria comprises selecting the first order to have priority over the second order because it was received first. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the first in method as disclosed by Gilfoyle to the order fulfillment method as taught by Dhesi and Lopez for the predicted result of improved order fulfillment methods. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 5, the claimed subject matter that is met by Dhesi, Lopez, Abromovitz and Gilfoyle includes:
wherein utilizing the at least one predetermined criteria comprises employing a first predetermined criteria and a second predetermined criteria (Lopez: ¶¶ 0062 and 0068)
The motivation for combining the teachings of Dhesi, Lopez, Abromovitz and Gilfoyle are discussed in the rejection of claim 4, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 6, the claimed subject matter that is met by Dhesi, Lopez, Abromovitz and Gilfoyle includes:
wherein the second predetermined criteria has a greater weight than the first predetermined criteria (Lopez: ¶¶ 0062 and 0068)
The motivation for combining the teachings of Dhesi, Lopez, Abromovitz and Gilfoyle are discussed in the rejection of claim 4, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 7, the claimed subject matter that is met by Dhesi, Lopez, Abromovitz and Gilfoyle includes:
wherein the first predetermined criteria is a relative time of receipt of the first order and the second order, and the second predetermined criteria is a relative size of the first order and the second order (Lopez: ¶¶ 0040, 0062 and 0068).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Dhesi, Lopez, Abromovitz and Gilfoyle are discussed in the rejection of claim 4, and are incorporated herein.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhesi in view of Lopez and Abromovitz as applied in claim 1, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0101250 A1 to Wang et al. (“Wang”).
As per claim 10, the claimed subject matter that is met by Dhesi, Lopez and Abromovitz includes:
identifying characteristics of a user of the at least one self-service ordering kiosk (Dhesi: ¶¶ 0035, 0040 and 0099 and (Abromovitz: ¶¶ 0027-0031 and 0059-0065 and Fig. 1C, 101 and 112 and Fig. 1B);
Dhesi, Lopez and Abromovitz fail to specifically teach utilizing information provided by the first point of sale system and the second point of sale system to create a custom interface for the user; and causing the to share the custom interface with the user. The Examiner provides Wang to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Wang includes:
utilizing information provided by the first point of sale system and the second point of sale system to create a custom interface for the user (Wang: ¶ 0096 and Fig. 6); and
causing the to share the custom interface with the user (Wang: ¶ 0096 and Fig. 6)
Dhesi, Lopez and Abromovitz teach order fulfillment methods. Wang teaches a comparable order fulfillment method that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Wang offers the embodiment of utilizing information provided by the first point of sale system and the second point of sale system to create a custom interface for the user, and causing the to share the custom interface with the user. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the custom interface as disclosed by Wang to the order fulfillment method as taught by Dhesi, Lopez and Abromovitz for the predicted result of improved order fulfillment methods. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached on (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627