DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 01 July 2026.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 11-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are amended.
Claims 21-23 are canceled.
Claims 2, 10, 13, and 18 were previously canceled.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
As indicated in the Office Action mailed on 04 December 2025, the claims recite allowable subject, and would be allowable if the claims were amended or re-written to overcome the 101 rejection indicated in this Office Action below.
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, 3-9, 11, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1, 3-9, & 11 are directed to a method, claims 12 & 14-16 are directed to a system, and claims 17 & 19-20 are directed to a product of manufacture (comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium).
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of identifying an interchangeable food item. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
receiving, a food item ordering, from a user, an order for a plurality of food items, the plurality of food items comprising perishable food items and receiving a user-planned schedule of use of the plurality of food items, wherein the user-planned schedule of use comprises a planned menu of dishes to be prepared and indications of when the dishes are to be prepared, the dishes incorporating the perishable food items;
based on selection of a fetched perishable food item for fulfilling the order and on placement of the fetched perishable food item into a physical shopping container, detecting a quality date of the fetched perishable food item including a quality date detector that scans the fetched perishable food item;
checking the detected quality date against a food item selection and order fulfillment strategy for selecting the perishable food items from a supplier food item inventory and fulfilling the order, where the checking determines based on the quality date of the fetched perishable food item where the fetched perishable food item is compatible with the food item selection and order fulfillment strategy; and
based on determining that the fetched perishable food item is incompatible with the food item selection and order fulfillment strategy, prompting a shopper to replace the fetched perishable food item and identifying for the shopper an interchangeable food item that is available in the supplier food item inventory for selection in place of the replaced fetched perishable food item.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of identifying an interchangeable food item, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity relating to sale activities or behaviors, since the amended claims specifically recite the steps required for identifying an interchangeable food item include receiving by an order for a plurality of food items by a user, where the food items include perishable food items and a user-planned schedule for the plurality of food items, based on the selection of fetched perishable food items for fulfilling the order and the placement of food items into a shopping cart, detecting a quality date of the perishable food items, checking the detected quality date against a food item selection and order fulfillment strategy for the selecting of the perishable food items from a supplier food item inventory and fulfilling the order, checking whether the fetched perishable food items are compatible with the food item selection and fulfillment strategy, based on determining the compatibility or incompatibility with the food item selection and order fulfillment strategy, prompting a shopper to replace the perishable food items that have been fetched, identifying for the shopper of interchangeable food items that are available in the supplier food item inventory for selection in place of the replaced fetched perishable food item, thereby making these activities related to sales activities or behaviors.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements (features emphasized below) that are beyond the judicial exception and include a computer, electronic food item ordering platform, electronic order, using one or sensors, scans, with optical or near-field based recognition, and electronically prompting.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., tracking compliance of food items of selected foods in an order) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. 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). For example, stating that food item is ordered from an electronic platform, determines based on the quality date of fetched perishable food items, and determining if the food items is incompatible and further prompting a shopper to replace the fetched perishable food item with an interchangeable food item, only generally links the commercial interactions and management of relationships or interactions between people to a computer environment. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of a computer, electronic food item ordering platform, electronic order, using one or sensors, scans, with optical or near-field based recognition, and electronically prompting, recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or are merely being used to perform the claimed functions and amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept and does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Independent claims 12 and 17 are similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 12 includes the additional elements of a memory, and a processor in communication with the memory, wherein the computer system is configured to perform, and independent claim 17 includes the additional element of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium readable by a processing circuit and storing instructions for execution by the processing circuit for performing. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the additional elements in claims 12 and 17, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 12 and 17 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 12 and 17 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 12 and 17, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, independent claims 12 and 17 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 3-9, 11, 14-16, and 19-20, depending from claims 1, 12, and 17 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 3-9, 11, 14-16, and 19-20 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea, and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that a dependent claim includes the additional element of electronic reminders (claim 11). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional element as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional element, individually and in combination with other claimed features, does not integrate into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept because it is merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claim 11 is directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional element of claims 11 considered individually and in combination, does not provide an inventive concept because it merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 3-9, 14-16, and 19-20 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, dependent claims 3-9, 11, 14-16, and 19-20 are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objections to claims 1, 12, and 17, and in light of the Applicant’s amendments filed on 01 July 2026, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 01 July 2026 have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 14 of the remarks stating “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 does not recite a mere method of organizing human activity,” and “Applicant’ respectfully submits that these limitations are not directed to a commercial interaction or sales activity; rather, they recite technological operations involving machine sensing, automated recognition of physical-item attributes, and real-time control of order-fulfillment activities based on sensor-derived data,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. When considering the amended claims under Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the amended claims are now directed to an abstract of identifying an interchangeable food item. The abstract idea in this case falls into the enumerated subgrouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because the claims specifically recite steps of identifying an interchangeable food item include receiving by an order for a plurality of food items by a user, where the food items include perishable food items and a user-planned schedule for the plurality of food items, based on the selection of fetched perishable food items for fulfilling the order and the placement of food items into a shopping cart, detecting a quality date of the perishable food items, checking the detected quality date against a food item selection and order fulfillment strategy for the selecting of the perishable food items from a supplier food item inventory and fulfilling the order, checking whether the fetched perishable food items are compatible with the food item selection and fulfillment strategy, based on determining the compatibility or incompatibility with the food item selection and order fulfillment strategy, prompting a shopper to replace the perishable food items that have been fetched, identifying for the shopper of interchangeable food items that are available in the supplier food item inventory for selection in place of the replaced fetched perishable food item. The claimed activities are related to sales activities or behaviors as the activities are specifically drawn to determining a substitute inventory item, which is a sales activity. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea that is related to sales activities or behaviors.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 15 of the remarks stating “Applicant respectfully submits that the claim integrates any such alleged abstract idea into a practical application,” and “The claimed features therefore apply any alleged abstract idea in a concrete manner that ties the claim to physical inventory management and real-world fulfillment operations,” and “the claim does not merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” and further “the claim imposes meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea and effects a practical application in the field of intelligent fulfillment of perishable-goods order,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the claims do not recite additional elements that would be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As stated above, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, where the claims are now reciting new features a computer, electronic food item ordering platform, electronic order, using one or sensors, scans, with optical or near-field based recognition, and electronically prompting. The newly claimed additional elements are still recited at a high-level of generality, and are recited in a generic manner. The additional elements in this case are merely being used to apply the abstract idea with generically recited computing components, or generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Further, the claims do not reflect any type of technological improvement to a technological issue. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraphs [0012]-[0015] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention as directed toward solving problems related to purchasing inventory before it expires, and further states “sometimes the quality dates of fulfilled items are not compatible with the consumer’s planned use of the items. Therefore, described herein are approaches and systems for intelligent food item order selection and fulfillment”. Although the claims include computer technology such as a computer, electronic food item ordering platform, electronic order, using one or sensors, scans, with optical or near-field based recognition, and electronically prompting, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of tracking compliance of food items of selected foods in an order. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improvements to tracking compliance of food items of selected perishable foods in a food order, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve tracking compliance of food items in a food order, e.g. commercial process. As such, the Examiner maintains that the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite specific technological improvements.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 16 of the remarks stating “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea,” and “The claim therefore does not merely recite use of a ‘computer’ as a tool to perform an abstract idea but instead employs specific sensing technology to achieve improved automated fulfillment of perishable goods,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As stated above, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional elements are still recited in a generic manner. The claimed additional elements are merely being used to apply the abstract idea with generically recited computing components and amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment. Even when considering the additional elements separately and in an ordered combination, there are no meaningful limitations in the independent claims that would transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application. Thus, the Examiner maintains that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In response to the Applicant’s argument found on page 16 of the remarks stating “Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 12 and 17 recite patent-eligible subject matter for at least the above reasons,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims 12 and 17 recite similar limitations to those in representative claim 1, and therefore the independent claims 12 and 17 are not eligible under the analysis for the same reasoning given above. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible and the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
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 ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights