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 .
Status of the Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined in this reply.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been considered but are not found to be persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims provide for a technical improvement to computer fulfillment systems via the optimization model. The Examiner disagrees. The additional elements of “processors and memory” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background and specification does not provide any indication that the “processors and memory” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
The Examiner notes that in the current form of the claims, the optimization model is a “black box” with some inputs and an output. There is no substance to the black box. The latest guidance issued August 4, 2025 discusses this in depth. The Examiner suggests describing the inner workings of the model as to remove the “black box” effect as a way forward with regards to the current 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-20 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity 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
In regard to claims 1-20 as indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Representative independent claim 15 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
An online concierge system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the online concierge system to perform steps including:
obtaining, by the online concierge system, a store plan indicating standard storage locations of items in a physical retailer and information about a rapid fulfillment area of the physical retailer available to stage select items for rapid fulfillment;
obtaining, by the online concierge system, order information associated with an order for items in an upcoming time window, the order assigned to a picker to procure the items for a customer from the physical retailer and associated with a path of the picker;
applying, by the online concierge system, an optimization model to dynamically determine, in real-time and based on the store plan the order information, current stock of the rapid fulfillment area, and historical order data including historical tracking data from tracking pickers during historical order fulfillments, one or more assignments for the picker to pick a replenishment item from its standard storage location and deliver the replenishment item to the rapid fulfillment area in association with fulfilling the order via the path;
generating, by the online concierge system, based on the one or more assignments determined from the applying of the optimization model, instructions to facilitate picking by the picker of the items in the order including at least one item for picking from the rapid fulfillment area, and instructions to facilitate picking by the picker of the replenishment item from the standard storage location for delivery to the rapid fulfillment area; and
generating, by the online concierge system, for a picker client device of the picker, instructions to facilitate delivery of the order to the customer.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processors and memory”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “processors and memory”, the above italicized limitations in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fundamental economic practices, 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 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 2 additional elements – “processors and memory”. They 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)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). 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 claims do 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 “processors and memory” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background and specification does not provide any indication that the “processors and memory” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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 at (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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights