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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 19, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-9, 11 and 13-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-9, 11, 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-21 are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 14) recites the following steps:
completing drive-up returns and drive up orders to customers at a retail environment, the system comprising:
receiving, from a customer of the plurality of customers, user input indicating selection of at least one item to return from an order, wherein the user input includes selection of a drive-up return for the at least one item;
receiving, from the customer user input indicating that the same customer placed a drive-up order, wherein the drive-up order includes one or more items that do not include the at least one item of the drive-up return;
generating a temporary data file to contain information about that includes (i) the at least one item for the drive-up return, (ii) drive-up order information, and (iii) customer information associated with the customer;
receiving, from the customer, user input at a later time indicating that a customer is on their way to the retail environment for the drive-up return, wherein the later time is within a threshold return-time-window;
populating the temporary data file with the information, wherein the information includes current location information associated with the customer;
transmitting, to a first employee of the plurality of employee, the populated data file that, when processed by the first employee, causes the first employee to display a list of drive- up returns and drive-up orders for customers arriving at the retail environment, wherein the list of drive-up returns and drive-up orders includes the drive-up return for the at least one item and the drive-up order of the same customer at the customer
receiving, from the first employee, user selection indicating an intention to handle, from the list of drive-up returns, the drive-up return for the at least one item and intention to prepare the drive-up order of the same customer at the customer;
receiving, from the customer device, user input indicating that the customer has arrived at the retail environment by selecting an option indicating that the customer has arrived in a designated parking location;
determining, that the customer is located within a arrival region of the retail environment based on (i) location data obtained from the customer and detecting, a match between the customer and the temporary data file based on the obtained data;
triggering, responsive to the determining and the detected match, generation of updated instruction sets that pushes in real time to one or more employee without requiring additional user confirmation or manual refresh, the updated instruction sets causing automatic updates into arrival-ready states for concurrent drive-up return and drive-up order processing
responsive to receiving the user input indicating that the customer has arrived at the retail environment, providing, to the first employee, instructions that cause the first employee to display instructions for the employee at the first employee to perform the drive-up return for the at least one item at the vehicle of the customer, and instructions for (i) delivering the prepared drive-up order at the vehicle of the customer and (ii) performing the drive-up return for the at least one item at a same time as (i);
receiving, from the first employee, user input indicating completion of the drive-up return for the at least one item and the drive-up order for the same customer;
generating return confirmation information indicating that (iii) the drive-up return for the at least one item is complete (iv) a refund has been issued to a payment method of the customer, and (v) the drive-up order has been fulfilled; and
providing, to the customer, the return confirmation information that includes instructions for presenting a notification that displays at least one of (iii), (iv), or (v).
Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) providing drive-up returns and drive up orders to customers at a retail environment (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 14 is determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
A system
a computing system having processors and memory, wherein the computing system is in communication with a plurality of customer devices and a plurality of employee devices, the computing system being configured to perform operations comprising:
customer device
employee device
plurality of employee devices
the populated data file that, when processed by the first employee device, causes the first employee device to display a first graphical user interface (GUI)
a first control in the first GUI
a second GUI and a third GUI,
geofenced arrival region
(ii) sensor data obtained from a scanning device
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “based on the customer interacting with the customer device" serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “based on the customer interacting with the customer device" serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more5' (see MPEP 2106.05 (g, h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 2 and 3, fails to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15-21 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
scanning, using a scanning device of the first employee device,
in the temporary data file
to the first employee device
output a graphical element as partially overlaying a visual indication of the at least one item presented in the second GUI
indicating selection of a graphical element presented with a visual indication of the at least one item presented in the second GUI
to the first employee device, instructions that, when executed, cause the first employee device to present a pop-out window visually overlaying a portion of the second GUI, the pop-out window including at least one data field for
the customer device
third GUI
a control in the third GUI
a fourth GUI
the computing system
wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to receiving, from the customer device, user input at a later time indicating that the customer is on their way to the retail environment for the drive-up return, transmitting, to the customer device, instructions that, when executed by the customer device, cause the customer device to present a map with the retail environment in the GUI display of the customer device
when executed by the customer device, cause the customer device to present, in the GUI display,
sensor data received from the scanning device at the fulfillment location.
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lievens 2018/0025319 Which teaches “in-store attended delivery/pickup locations may also be used to facilitate the return of items purchased from a retail web site that is: (1) associated with the department store in which the attended delivery/pickup location is located; and/or (2) not associated with the department store in which the attended/delivery/ pickup location is located.
Veras-Nunez 2017/0337509 Systems, methods and devices for network-connected order fulfillment using location based information but does not disclose the temporary data file
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant submits that the pending claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter because the claimed system provides technical solutions to technical problems present in conventional drive-up retail workflows.
The Examiner maintains that this claim of a technical improvement is not representative of an "actual" improvement to the technology itself, but at best is an improvement to the business method or abstract idea itself. Examiner respectfully notes that the amended features of the claimed invention (i.e. " determining, by the computing system, that the customer device is located within a geofenced arrival region of the retail environment … detecting, by the computing system, a match between the customer device and the temporary data file based on the obtained data; … triggering, responsive to the determining and the detected match, generation of updated GUI instruction sets ") does not represent an improvement, it is merely performing operations with a customer device and the claimed computer system. The Applicant cannot point to anything that was specifically done either in the claimed subject matter, the specification, or provided reasoning to show how this is provides an improvement to the technology of the conventional system implementation. Moreover, the Examiner respectfully notes that the needed "improvement" in terms of patent eligibility is not one resulting from programming a generic computer system or customer device to perform a different (or even improved) function, but rather a specific and actual improvement to the machine itself is needed. Applicant’s arguments point to an improvement in workflow, not technology. Applicant’s claims to increasing bandwidth usage and delaying updates is also not supported by the claims. Based on these findings of fact, the Examiner contends the claims remain directed towards an abstract idea and Applicant's arguments to the contrary are considered to be non-persuasive.
Applicant Argues: More specifically, claim 1 now recites that the computing system uses sensor data and location data to automatically determine that the customer device has entered a geofenced arrival region, detects a match between the customer device and the temporary data file, and then triggers updated GUI instruction sets that cause automatic updates of the second GUI and the third GUI into arrival-ready states for concurrent drive-up return and drive-up order processing. These operations provide concrete improvements to networked computing devices by enabling real-time synchronization across multiple employee devices, eliminating manual refresh, reducing redundant communications, and ensuring faster and more accurate workflow coordination.
Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and does not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, integrating customer activity and operating employee workflows is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way of integrating customer activity and operating employee workflows is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Applicant Argues: As in Example 42, the amended claims integrate customer activity and employee workflows into a practical application by improving the operation of networked computing devices.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims of Examiner 42 are not at all like the instant claims. In Example 42 the claims are directed to converting nonstandard updated information into the standardized format. Specifically, storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. The combination of additional elements is what makes the claim patent eligible. The instant claims are more like Example 2 where the claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing location based workflow update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626