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 .
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 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 remain pending, and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/20/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/20/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on page 17 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims generate and execute specific instructions for controlling a fully-autonomous robot to physically collect the set of items at a location of the selected retailer, as well as for controlling a movement of the fully-autonomous robot from the location of the selected retailer to a delivery location. On pages 17-18, comparisons are also drawn to claim 2 of Example 46 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, such as the operating of the fully-autonomous robot by employing information provided by the judicial exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not using the information of the judicial exception to control the functioning of an autonomous robot, but are merely delivering the set of items to the user, and automating the process with a general recitation of the autonomous robot. The claims do not recite any particular functionality or specificity to the technical functions of the robot, merely reciting providing navigational instructions, controlling a movement (without any further detail), ad moving the robot. The claims do not recite any particular way of controlling the robot or any particular technical details of the robot. Furthermore, the robot is only disclosed once in the specification as an example of something that can automate the job of the picker. The comparisons are inapposite to claim 2 of Example 46. In claim 2 of Example 46, the claim was found to be eligible because while claim 1 merely automated the mental process of the farmer to analyze data of aberrant behavioral patterns, claim 2 adds meaningful limitation in that it can employ the information provided by the judicial exception to operate a feed dispenser, enabling the control of appropriate farm equipment based on the automatic detection and take corrective action and control the feed dispenser in a particular way. Unlike Example 46, the claims only recite general navigational instructions and controlling of the robot, without any particularity. Furthermore, the claims do not use the information of the judicial exception to control the robot in a particular manner, but merely use the robot to automate the job of a picker to further the sales activity of delivering a set of items. Even further, the specification does not disclose any of the technical problems or solutions of the fully autonomous robot, and merely list the robot as an example of automating the job of the picker.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Taking claim 20 as representative, claim 20 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of identifying a new retailer for frequent item purchases in a new location:
Maintaining an item catalog for each of a plurality of retailers at a plurality of locations;
maintaining information about a plurality of items purchased by a user at a first retailer of the plurality of retailers at a first location;
receiving current location information for the user at a second location, wherein the second location is beyond a threshold distance from the first location;
responsive to receiving the current location information for the user at the second location that is beyond the threshold distance from the first location;
determining a repurchase probability for each item in a set of purchased items, wherein the set of purchased items is at least a portion of the plurality of purchased items maintained for the user;
retrieving, using the current location information for the user, information about a set of retailers associated with the second location;
for each retailer associated with the second location,
determining an item similarity score for each item in the set of purchased items purchased by the user at the first retailer;
determining a retailer similarity score based on each item similarity score weighted by the repurchase probability;
ranking a list of recommended retailers associated with the second location based on the retailer similarity scores;
sending the ranked list of recommended retailers to the user, wherein sending causes to update the display with the ranked list of recommended retailers for selection by the user of each retailer from the ranked list of recommended retailers;
receiving, information about the user selecting a retailer from a ranked list of recommended retailers and placing an order including a set of items associated with the selected retailer;
responsive to the user selecting the retailer and placing the order, assigning a servicing of the order to a picker;
generating collection instructions using information about the set of items in a location of the selected retailer;
upon assigning the servicing of the order, instructing, via the collection instructions, the picker to collect the set of items in the location of the selected retailer;
physically collecting, by the picker, and using the collection instructions, the set of items in the location of the selected retailer;
upon collecting the set of items in the location of the selected retailer, generating navigation instructions using information about the location of the selected retailer and information delivery locations associated with the user;
delivering the set of items to the user at the delivery location.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for identifying a new retailer for frequent item purchases in a new location. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to determining retailer similarity by item similarity to purchased items weighted by a repurchase probability and recommending retailers for a user in a new location, which is an advertising and marketing activity. Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 20 recites additional elements, such as:
a computer processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions;
a database of an online system;
via a network;
a device associated with the user;
causes the device of the user to update a user interface;
a fully-autonomous robot;
controlling, via the navigation instructions stored at the computer-readable medium and executed by the processor, a movement of the fully-autonomous robot from the location of the selected retailer to a delivery location associated with the user;
moving, along a navigation route identified by the navigation instructions, the fully-autonomous robot from the location of the selected retailer to the delivery location;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 20 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite a computer processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium, these elements are recited at a very high level of generality as executing instructions to perform the abstract idea. The specification also discloses these elements with a very high level of generality, such as in paragraph [0083], which discloses that the computer processor performs any or all of the steps described, and can be one or more processors or processing units. The non-transitory computer-readable medium is disclosed in paragraphs [0083-0084], but do not disclose any detail beyond a general recitation of storing instructions or a computer program. As such, it is evident that these elements are not any particular computer component, and are generic components that are merely applied to the abstract idea to provide a general link to a computing environment. The device of the user is disclosed in paragraph [0015], which only discloses that the customer client device may be any of a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop computer, or desktop computer. The client device also only serves to display information. The robot is also disclosed without any specificity or detail, specification paragraph [0026] merely disclosing that a fully autonomous robot may be used to automate the steps taken by the picker. The navigation instructions to the picker are only in regards to the picker to know the locations, and is not specific to the robot (specification: [0023]). As such, it is evident that the robot is merely applied to the abstract idea to automate the role of the picker, and is not any particular robot, but any generic robot that can be provided instructions to automate a task. As such, the device of the user is also a generic device performing generic functions in a general manner to provide a general link to a computing environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), representative claim 20 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to representative claim 20, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 20 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 20 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 20 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 20 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 1 (method): Claim 1 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 20 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 1 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 20.
Regarding Claim 11 (non-transitory computer-readable medium): Claim 11 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 20 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 11 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 20.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 20, such as by further defining the algorithm of identifying a new retailer for frequent item purchases in a new location, and do not recite any further additional elements. Thus, each of claims 2-10 and 12-19 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 20. Further additional elements are also acknowledged; however, the additional elements of claims 2-10 and 12-19 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-10 and 12-19 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 20. Thus, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The following is a restatement of reasons for indicating subject matter free of the prior art in the previous Office Action mailed on 4/17/2025:
Claims 1-20 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of the prior art, however, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as set forth above.
Claims 1-20 are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 recites for each retailer associated with the second location,
determining a retailer similarity score based on each item similarity score weighted by the repurchase probability;
The closest prior art was found to be as follows:
Zhao (US 20140297414 A1) recites [0018] – “When the user travels to a location (a "current location") that is more than a predetermined distance from the home location, the systems and methods may determine that a current time corresponds to a time period associated with a routine purchase type and, in response, retrieve merchants that are located in the current location and that provide the routine purchase type associated with the time period. Those merchants may then be displayed on a user device to allow the user to quickly and easily determine a merchant in their current location (away from their home location) at which they may make their routine purchase. Routine data may associate routine purchase types with linked purchase types that are purchases commonly made by the user following a routine purchase type in the home location, and when such a routine purchase type is made in a location that is a predetermined distance from the home location, the systems and methods may retrieve merchants that are located in the current location and that provide the linked purchase types”.
Kulagin (US 20150058087 A1) recites [0010] – “assign feature vectors to respective ones of the plurality of stores. Each of the feature vectors includes values of the behavior for the key items. A respective one of the feature vectors represents the behavior of a respective one of the plurality of stores”; [0012] – “determine similar stores of a respective one of the plurality of stores. To determine the similar stores, the one or more computers select a subset of the plurality of stores”; [0023] – “the one or more computer programs determine K nearest neighboring stores, based on the similarity distance which is determined at step 105 shown in FIG. 1. The number K is predetermined so that the K stores are chosen from the plurality of stores and further the similar stores can be chosen from the K stores. The number K is selected reasonably large to produce an excessive list for choosing the similar stores. There are several algorithms for this step. One of the algorithms is the k-nearest neighbor algorithm (k-NN), which is a non-parametric method for classifying objects based on closest training examples in the feature space. The k-nearest neighbor algorithm (k-NN) guarantees to find the nearest neighboring stores”.
Gonzales (US 20130110599 A1) recites [0033] – “when the user moves to a different geographic location (as determined, for example, by identifying the location of the user's mobile device), the system/program administrator can automatically display to the purchaser similar stores or sellers, in the new geographic area, that may suit the customers' like and needs”.
Hosny (US 9,373,131 B1) recites col. 4, ln. 40-49 – “At least one of the technical problems addressed by this system includes: (i) the inability for a consumer to receive a recommendation as to where the consumer should reside within the target location wherein the recommendation is based on the consumer's past payment transactions, and (ii) the inability for a consumer that is relocating from a first location to a new residence at a target location to receive recommendations as to what merchants are nearby the new residence that are similar to the merchants the consumer frequented while residing at the first location”.
NPL Reference U (see PTO-892 Reference U mailed on 4/17/2025) discloses methods of recommending merchants based on various associations. Previous transactions are analyzed to determine distance between merchants, items purchased together between merchants, and other preferences to determine the inter-merchant relations to recommend the next merchant to a user.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 in combination that overcome the prior art are:
determining a retailer similarity score based on each item similarity score weighted by the repurchase probability;
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that claims 1-20 are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 2/17/2026