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
Claims 1, 14, and 20 have been amended. Claims 8 and 16 are canceled. Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, but an improvement in distributed order-state management and network communication efficiency within a multi-device fulfillment system. Examiner disagrees. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that the claims focus on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. It is noted that the specification states: [0004] This document generally describes a network based order fulfillment system that provides information to one or more user devices that allow users, such as employees, of the user devices located at a fulfillment location (such as a physical store location, a restaurant, a warehouse, or other location) to fulfill orders placed by users, such as customers, of other user devices. More particularly, the disclosed technology provides techniques for fulfilling drive up or pickup orders that include specially designated items. The disclosed technology can also be used to ensure that specially designated items that are considered perishables are stored at preferred temperatures and not left at room temperature for long periods of time to reduce or otherwise avoid spoilage. Further, the specification in [0028] recites “…by providing streamlined communications between mobile user devices operated by customers and the employees working at fulfillment locations, an order fulfillment system can reduce the amount of time spent interacting with the mobile devices, thereby reducing power consumption and improving battery life of the computing devices. Additionally, by streamlining communications while providing for computer network based ordering and pickup facilitation, the computing system can reduce the amount of communications to and from mobile user devices, thereby reducing bandwidth usage of one or more communications networks and freeing up communications bandwidth for other purposes. Additionally, unique user interface elements at the user devices can improve user experience thereby leading to improved outcomes with respect to efficiency and accuracy of both user interactions with the user devices and fulfillment of orders. The claims and cited portions of the specification indicate that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, specifically certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions or behavior, business relations, following rules or instructions; commercial interactions). The claim limitations directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions or behavior, business relations, following rules or instructions; commercial interactions), as evidenced by limitations drawn to determining an amount of time that orders have been scanned out of a hold item and waiting customer arrival, receiving a user selection of a control for a GUI indicating an intention to deliver an order, and additional limitations of the claim that are related to the processing and order fulfillment of orders. Limitations that disclose notifying or instructing an employee to return an identified item to storage before spoilage also directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity. The use of a user device or computer to present this instruction or notification amounts to “apply it’ or merely using a computer as tool to implement the judicial exception. The certain methods of organizing human activity sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person and activity that involves multiple people, and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. See MPEP §2106.06(a)(2).
The claims also recite limitations that directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by several limitations drawn to observing and evaluating data (e.g., time an order has been scanned out and awaiting arrival, etc.), and making a decision (opinion or judgment) based on the observed and evaluated data. Reciting “stored” temperature and time thresholds only confirm that a computer, performing its usual functions (e.g., processing, storing, etc.), are merely performing the limitations that corresponds to the abstract idea. Additionally, applicant’s assertion that the computing system is performing condition-based evaluation indicates that the computer is merely performing the abstract idea (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process (MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong two that the limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because invention reduces network transmission and device processing overhead by generating update data centrally and distributing the update to multiple devices rather than requiring repeated requests or polling by individual devices, thus a centralized aggregated update behavior. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. This is simply an argument in reducing computing overhead. Computing overhead is merely a combination of excess computation time, usage, or memory required to perform a specific task, which further indicates that the alleged improvement is an improvement in the business process (being performed via computer) rather than an improvement in the actual computer itself. Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also MPEP §2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the applicant argues a non-conventional configuration of distributed computing components that improves synchronization and communication efficiency across multiple devices. The cited portions of the specification ([0025]-[0028]) does not indicate non-conventional configurations of computing components. Nonetheless, , the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant further argues that their claim(s) are similar to that of example 42 in the 2019 PEG Guidance. Examiner disagrees. In example 42, patient information is input in any format used by a user’s local device and whenever the patient information is updated, the information is first converted into a standardized format and stored. A message containing the updated information is transmitted in a standardized format over the computer network to all physicians and healthcare providers that have access to the patient’s information so that all users can be notified of changes without having to manually consolidate all of the updates. Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim in example 42 is integrated into a practical application due to reciting the additional elements of 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 claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Applicant’s claims are in no way similar to example 42. Collecting data over a network, applying stored thresholds, automatically updating stored information, and automatically distributing an update signal to multiple devices in real-time that improve the functionality of the order-fulfillment process (because it does not improve the functioning of a computer, only the order fulfillment process), does not include a technical process involving the conversion of data into a standardized format as described in example 42. Applicant’s claims and additional elements when considered as a whole and merely amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. The generic computer components merely operate as typical computers do to process and communicate data. The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant also argues that their claims are similar to example 46 of the PEG. Examiner disagrees. Applicant provides the reason that claim 4 of Example 46 was deemed eligible due to recitations directed toward receiving information (inputs) from specific sensors in a system. Claim 4 was not deemed eligible simply due to receiving information from sensors in a system. Claim 4 was found eligible under Step 2A Prong One because the claim did not recite a judicial exception, which is not the case for applicant’s claim(s).
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
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 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 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 1-7, 9-15, and 17-19 recite a method (i.e. process) and claims 20-22 recite a system (i.e. machine). Therefore claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1 and 20 recite limitations: providing information that, causes each of [the plurality of user devices] to display a same type of [a first graphical user interface (GUI)], the first GUI including a list of orders for customers for fulfillment at a fulfillment location; receiving, by [the computing system] and from [one or more scanning devices] associated with respective hold locations, (i) scan data indicating that one or more items of the orders have been removed from the hold locations and (ii) environmental data indicating current storage conditions of the hold locations; determining for each order in the list of orders an amount of time that the order has been scanned out of a hold location and awaiting customer arrival; determining whether environmental data for the hold location satisfies a stored temperature threshold; determining for each order in the list of orders whether the amount of time exceeds a stored first threshold amount of time; in response to determining whether the environmental data satisfies a temperature threshold, whether the amount of time exceeds the first threshold amount of time, or both, generating an event flag for the order; generating a first update signal that indicates an update to one or more orders of the list of orders, wherein the first update signal includes the event flag and graphic indicator data generated by the computing system, wherein the computing system aggregates event flags for a plurality of orders prior to generating the update signal; updating, based on the event flag, stored order data associated with the order; transmitting to at least a subset of [the plurality of user devices] the first update signal as a single update generated by the [computing system] for distribution of the [plurality of user devices], such that each [user device] updates a corresponding graphic indicator upon receipt of the first updated signal without requiring user input to request the update, wherein the updated graphic indicators cause [the first GUI] to represent the order in a first indicia, wherein the graphical indicator presented in the [first GUI] differs based on whether the environmental data satisfies the temperature threshold, wherein transmitting the first update signal reduces a number of network transmissions and [user device] operations relative to systems that periodically request updates; initiating in response to the event flag, a return-to-storage alert that includes control data causing at least one [user device] to present notification instructing an employee to return the identified item to the hold location before spoilage receiving an indication of a user selection of a first control presented in [the first GUI] indicating an intention to deliver an order in the list of orders; providing information that causes [the first user device] to display [a second GUI], [the second GUI] including indications of one or more order hold locations in the fulfillment location and one or more bags associated with each of the one or more order hold locations for the selected order to be delivered; receiving an indication of user selection of an indication of a bag presented in [the second GUI] indicating an intention to put the bag back in the respective hold location; providing information that causes [the first device] to display a pop out window that overlays a portion of [the second GUI], the pop out window including information about items in the selected bag; receiving, an indication of user selection of an option presented in the pop out window to put the selected bag back in the respective hold location; providing information that causes [the first device] to update the indication of the selected bag; retrieving, based on the updated indication, the selected bag associated with an order of a customer; and providing the selected bag associated with the order to the customer. The claims are drawn to a network based fulfillment system that provides information to customers, employees, etc. and ensures that perishables are stored at preferred temperatures to avoid spoilage. The claim limitations directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions or behavior, business relations, following rules or instructions; commercial interactions), as evidenced by limitations drawn to determining an amount of time that orders have been scanned out of a hold item and waiting customer arrival, receiving a user selection of a control for a GUI indicating an intention to deliver an order, and additional limitations of the claim that are related to the processing and order fulfillment of orders. The claims also recite limitations that directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by several limitations drawn to observing and evaluating data (e.g., time an order has been scanned out and awaiting arrival, etc.), and making a decision (opinion or judgment) based on the observed and evaluated data. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above Step 2A Prong One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a computing system, a server, a plurality of user devices, a first GUI of the plurality of user devices, one or more scanning devices, a second GUI, one or more processors (claim 20), computer memory (claim 20). The additional elements of a computing system, a server, a plurality of user devices, a first GUI of the plurality of user devices, a second GUI of the user device, one or more processors (claim 20), computer memory (claim 20) are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the plurality of scanning devices amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (scanning orders for fulfillment). Accordingly, in combination, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 14 recites the limitations of a method for managing and delivering orders having special items to customers at an order fulfillment location; receiving information that causes [the user device] to display a same type of [a first graphical user interface (GUI)] including a list of orders for customers for fulfillment at a fulfillment location; receiving, from [one or more scanning devices] associated with respective hold locations and via [the server], scan data and environmental data indicating removal of items of the orders from the hold locations and current storage conditions of the hold locations; presenting for each order in the list of orders, an amount of time that the order has been scanned out of a hold location and awaiting customer arrival; receiving a first update signal as a single update generated by the [computing system] for distribution of the [plurality of user devices], including event flag data and graphical indicator data generated based on determining that the amount of time for the order exceeds a stored first threshold amount of time, that the environmental data satisfies a stored temperature threshold, or both; automatically updating without requiring user input to request the update, a graphical indicator corresponding to the order in real time based on the first update signal, wherein the graphical indicator provides a visual indication that the order includes a special item subject to temperature-sensitive handling; presenting a notification prompting a return-to-storage action responsive to control data in the first update signal, the notification being generated when the temperature threshold is exceeded to prevent spoilage of the special item; receiving an indication of user selection of a first control presented in [the first GUI] indicating an intention to deliver an order in the list of orders; receiving information that causes [the user device] to display [a second GUI] including indications of one or more order hold locations in the fulfillment location and one or more bags associated with each of the one or more order hold locations for the selected order to be delivered; receiving an indication of user selection of an indication of a bag presented in [the second GUI] indicating an intention to put the bag back in the respective hold location, wherein the bag includes at least one special item; receiving information that causes [the user device] to display a pop out window that overlays a portion of [the second GUI], the pop out window including information about items in the selected bag; receiving an indication of user selection of an option presented in the pop out window to put the selected bag back in the respective hold location; receiving information that causes [the user device] to update the indication of the selected bag; retrieving, based on the updated indication, the selected bag associated with an order of a customer; and providing the selected bag associated with the order to the customer. The claims are drawn to a network based fulfillment system that provides information to customers, employees, etc. and ensures that perishables are stored at preferred temperatures to avoid spoilage. The claim limitations directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions or behavior, business relations, following rules or instructions; commercial interactions), as evidenced by limitations drawn to determining an amount of time that orders have been scanned out of a hold item and waiting customer arrival, receiving a user selection of a control for a GUI indicating an intention to deliver an order, and additional limitations of the claim that are related to the processing and order fulfillment of orders. The claims also recite limitations that directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by several limitations drawn to observing and evaluating data (e.g., time an order has been scanned out and awaiting arrival, etc.), and making a decision (opinion or judgment) based on the observed and evaluated data. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above Step 2A Prong One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a computing system, a server, a user device, a first GUI of a user device, a second GUI of the user device, and one or more scanning devices. The additional elements of a computing system, a server, a user device, a first GUI of a user device, and a second GUI of the user device are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the one or more scanning devices amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (scanning orders for fulfillment). Accordingly, in combination, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, 21, and 22 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, 21, and 22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Brightwell (2022/0027842) and DeJarnette (2019/0311322). Brightwell discloses a system for cold-chain compliant item selection. A set of perishable items are selected for retrieval by a user based on item data, cold-chain compliance score (s), and/or cold-chain compliance restrictions associated with each user. The selected set of items are assigned to the user for retrieval in accordance with a set of cold-chain compliance parameters, including a per-item maximum dwell-time specifying a maximum time interval between removal of a perishable item from a temperature-controlled display area and receipt of the perishable item at an intake area. A dwell-time is calculated for an item received at an intake area. The item is accepted if the per-item maximum dwell-time exceeds the calculated dwell-time and the item is rejected if the calculated dwell-time exceeds the per-item maximum dwell-time. DeJarnette discloses a system for cold-chain compliance of items on a smart storage cart. The cart automatically updates the PI in response to removal of items from the cart or addition of items to the cart. The smart storage cart activates bin restock indicators to identify bins for removal of items or addition of items to the cart. A cold-chain compliance component calculates the smart storage cart's dwell-time outside temperature-controlled areas. The cart outputs an alert recommending return of the smart storage cart to a temperature-controlled area if the cart's dwell time approaches the maximum dwell-time and/ or outputs an alert if the smart storage cart's dwell-time exceeds the maximum dwell-time. Neither reference, individually nor in combination, appears to disclose the limitations providing, by the computing system at the first user device via the server, information that, when processed by the first user device, causes the first user device to display a second GUI, the second GUI including indications of one or more order hold locations in the fulfillment location and one or more bags associated with each of the one or more order hold locations for the selected order to be delivered; receiving, by the computing system and from the first user device via the server, an indication of user selection of an indication of a bag presented in the second GUI indicating an intention to put the bag back in the respective hold location; providing, by the computing system to the first user device via the server, information that, when processed by the first device, causes the first device to display a pop out window that overlays a portion of the second GUI, the pop out window including information about items in the selected bag; receiving, by the computing system and from the first user device via the server, an indication of user selection of an option presented in the pop out window to put the selected bag back in the respective hold location; providing, by the computing system to the first user device via the server, information that, when processed by the first device, causes the first device to update the indication of the selected bag. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes “The Algorithms That Make Instacart Roll: Hoe Machine Learning and Other Tech Tools Guide Your Groceries From Store to Doorstep” (Rao & Zhang, 2021) which discloses details on how stores keep track of products in the store on the shelf and in cold areas, including an app that an order filler uses which suggests order picking in an order where refrigerated and frozen items, or hot or fresh deli items are picked near the end of the shopping trip, and tracking each item as it’s scanned into the shopper’s cart. The reference, neither individually nor in combination, does not appear to disclose the limitations providing, by the computing system at the first user device via the server, information that, when processed by the first user device, causes the first user device to display a second GUI, the second GUI including indications of one or more order hold locations in the fulfillment location and one or more bags associated with each of the one or more order hold locations for the selected order to be delivered; receiving, by the computing system and from the first user device via the server, an indication of user selection of an indication of a bag presented in the second GUI indicating an intention to put the bag back in the respective hold location; providing, by the computing system to the first user device via the server, information that, when processed by the first device, causes the first device to display a pop out window that overlays a portion of the second GUI, the pop out window including information about items in the selected bag; receiving, by the computing system and from the first user device via the server, an indication of user selection of an option presented in the pop out window to put the selected bag back in the respective hold location; providing, by the computing system to the first user device via the server, information that, when processed by the first device, causes the first device to update the indication of the selected bag. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628