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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-15, 18, 20, and 22 are amended. Claims 8 and 16 are canceled. Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Claims Recite A Judicial Exception Under Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity nor mental processes. Examiner disagrees.
Step 2A Prong One of the Alice/Mayo framework evaluates whether an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. 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. 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 steps followed in order fulfillment and ensuring that the perishable items avoid spoilage. 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). For instance,. applicant’s claim limitations are fundamentally following rules or instructions pertaining to steps to be followed based on analyzing information such as scan-out information, and the time that perishables have been scanned out of a holding location.
Applicant’s continued reliance on the cited internal memorandum is unavailing. The memorandum does not introduce any new standards, alter the governing framework, or otherwise modify the analysis for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. Instead, it merely reiterates principles (guidance) already set forth in the Office’s existing guidance and controlling case law. Notably, applicant fails to identify any substantive distinction between the memorandum and the current eligibility framework, nor does applicant explain how the memorandum would compel a different outcome under the already established analysis. Mere citation to the memorandum without anymore more does not traverse the rejection. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as they amount to a restatement of existing guidance already considered and applied in the present analysis.
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 claim limitations detail various analysis performed that are used in order to make a decision on how to proceed based on the observation and evaluation of data. 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)). This is the case in the applicant’s invention. The computer components are merely used in the applicant’s invention to performing the collection of information or data, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, applicant’s claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of the results of the collection and analyses, said results being used to make decisions regarding the order/items and steps in order fulfillment to ensure the order/items avoid spoilage. As stated in Electric Power Group, “… the claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101.” Applicant’s claims are “ clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.” (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
For the reasons set forth above, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
The Judicial Exception Is Not Integrated Into A Practical Application Under Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, particularly an improvement in computers or technology. Examiner disagrees.
The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: (see MPEP §2106.04(d))
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;
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use;
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, one or more sensors, a digital communication link, a second GUI and pop-out window of the 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 and pop-out window, digital communication link, 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 and one or more sensors amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (scanning orders for fulfillment, and data gathering for order 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 speciation as analyzed in the Step 2A Prong One and also mentioned in the Affidavit (e.g., #9 of the Affidavit) discloses the improvement as an improvement in efficiency and accuracy of user interactions with the user devices. This is not an improvement in computers or technology, but at best an improvement in the judicial expectation itself. This is merely an improvement in the business process itself; an improvement in how the order is fulfilled. The users can refer to data displayed on the user device (data that has been obtained through scanning devices, sensors of the holding environment, and analyzed by a computer and displayed to the user via their device) in order to make a determination on the next step in order fulfillment with the goal to keep the items/order from spoilage. This may involve looking at the data on how long perishable items have been scanned out of a temperature controlled environment and determining to place the order back in a temperature controlled environment. "[I]mproving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality." Customedia Technologies v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See also Trading Techs. In the applicant’s invention, the computer functionality or operations do not change nor is it improved. The computer is performing the normal operations of collecting, analyzing, and displaying data, similar to that of Electric Power Group. The alleged improvement is an improvement in the judicial exception: commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior; commercial interactions, business relations; the observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Technical improvement focuses on enhancing the tools, software, or machinery, while business process improvement focuses on streamlining the steps, workflows, and methodologies people use to do their work. Applicant’s claims fall in the latter as evidenced by the specification and claims. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements, or the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception (MPEP §2106.05(a)). Here, the additional elements amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use, both of which the Courts have indicated does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It also is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology.
Applicant’s argument regarding reducing 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 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).
Examiner also notes that the information that appears in the respective Affidavit appear to be statements of opinion, respectively, and are not evidentiary facts, per se. Additionally, Mr. Black has direct ties with the applicant, Target Brands, Inc., making the statements appear to be self-serving, and the conclusions do not appear to be made an objective review of patent eligibility and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections. The statements presented in the Affidavit have been considered and are unpersuasive in overcoming the outstanding 101 rejection.
For the reasons set forth above, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
The Claims Do Not Include Additional Elements That Are Sufficient To Amount To Significantly More Than The Judicial Exception Under Step 2B
Applicant argues that the claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees.
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception also include: (see MPEP §2106.05)
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use;
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 under Step 2A Prong Two, 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’s assertion that the claim was not considered as an ordered combination is invalid. As stated in the rejection “…when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea”. Applicant’s argument is merely conclusory without providing evidence to support their assertion. Disagreeing with the outcome is not enough to traverse the rejection. Further, applicant argues that their claims are not well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Applicant is reminded that, under step 2B, whether the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is only one consideration under Step 2B. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception also include: (see MPEP §2106.05) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, both of which the analysis has shown applies to the additional elements in the applicant’s claims.
For the reasons set forth above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 20 recites the limitation "the digital communication link" in the amended limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose, the digital communication link is being interpreted as a communication link between the various devices.
Claims 1 and 20 recite the limitation “the return-to-storage control data” in the amended limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose, the return-to-storage control data is being interpreted as instructions presented to an employee to return an item to storage.
Claims 1 and 20 recite the limitation of “the selected bag” in the amended limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose, the selected bag is being interpreted as a bag containing the items of the order that was scanned out of a hold location.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, 21, and 22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to their dependency on the rejected independent claims.
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 recites the limitations: providing, by [a computing system] to each of [a plurality of user devices] via [a server], information that, when processed by each of the plurality of user devices, 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, scan data generated by the one or more scanning devices, the scan data indicating that one or more items of the orders have been scanned out of the respective hold locations; receiving, by the computing system, environmental data indicating current storage conditions of the respective hold locations, the environmental data being received from [one or more sensors] or storage-condition settings associated with the respective hold locations; storing, by the computing system in association with stored order data for each order in the list of orders, scan-out status data generated based on the scan data and storage-condition data generated based on the environmental data; responsive to receiving the scan data generated by the one or more scanning devices, determining, by the computing system and for each order in the list of orders, an amount of time that the order has been scanned out of a corresponding hold location and awaiting customer arrival based on the scan-out status data stored for the order; responsive to receiving the environmental data from the one or more environmental sensors via the [digital communication link], determining, by the computing system, whether the current storage conditions for the corresponding hold location satisfy a stored temperature threshold associated with the corresponding hold location; responsive to determining the amount of time that the order has been scanned out of the corresponding hold location, determining, by the computing system and for each order in the list of orders, whether the amount of time exceeds a stored first threshold amount of time associated with items of the order; in response to determining whether the environmental data satisfies the stored temperature threshold, whether the amount of time exceeds the first threshold amount of time, or both, generating by the computing system an event flag for the order, the event flag including event-state data indicating at least one of (i) a temperature-threshold condition for the corresponding hold location or (ii) a scan-out-time condition for the order; generating, by the computing system, 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, by the computing system and based on the event flag, stored order data associated with the order, the stored order data including the scan-out status data and the storage- condition data; transmitting, by the computing system to at least a subset of the plurality of user devices via the server, the first update signal as a single update generated by the computing system for distribution to the plurality of user devices, such that each user device updates a corresponding graphic indicator upon receipt of the first update 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 stored 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, by the computing system in response to the event flag, a return-to-storage alert that includes the return-to-storage control data causing at least one user device to present a notification instructing an employee to return the identified item to the hold location before spoilage, wherein the return-to-storage control data causes the at least one user device to automatically display the notification together with the corresponding updated graphic indicator in the first GUI without requiring the at least one user device to separately request return-to- storage status data for the order; receiving, by the computing system, return status data generated based on a scan of the selected bag, a user confirmation indicating that the identified item has been returned to the hold location, or both; responsive to receiving the return scan data, updating, by the computing system, the stored order data to indicate a returned-to-storage status of the identified item; receiving, by the computing system and from a first user device of the plurality of user devices via the server, 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, by the computing system to 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 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 to indicate that the selected bag has been selected for return to the respective hold location; 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 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 claimed invention and 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 steps followed in order fulfillment and ensuring that the perishable items avoid spoilage. 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 claim limitations detail various analysis performed that are used in order to make a decision on how to proceed based on the observation and evaluation of 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, one or more sensors, a digital communication link, a second GUI and pop-out window of the 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 and pop-out window, digital communication link, 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 and one or more sensors amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (scanning orders for fulfillment, and data gathering for order 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: receiving, from [a computing system] and at [a user device in a plurality of user devices] via [a server], information that, when processed by the user device, 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 the computing system and at the user device via the server, a first update signal as a single update generated by the computing system for distribution to the plurality of user devices, wherein the first update signal includes event flag data, graphical indicator data, and return-to-storage control data generated based on (i) scan data generated by one or more scanning devices associated with respective hold locations and (ii) environmental data indicating current storage conditions of the respective hold locations, wherein the scan data indicates that one or more items of the orders have been scanned out of the respective hold locations, wherein the environmental data is received by the computing system from [one or more sensors] or storage-condition settings associated with the respective hold locations, and wherein the event flag data includes event-state data indicating at least one of (i) a temperature-threshold condition for a corresponding hold location or (ii) a scan-out-time condition for the order; presenting, at the user device and 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 based on scan-out status data generated by the computing system based on the scan data; automatically updating, by the user device and 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, wherein the graphical indicator differs based on whether the environmental data satisfies a stored temperature threshold; presenting, at the user device, a notification prompting a return-to-storage action responsive to the return-to-storage control data in the first update signal, the notification being generated when the stored temperature threshold is exceeded to prevent spoilage of the special item, wherein the return-to-storage control data causes the user device to automatically display the notification together with the graphical indicator in the first GUI without requiring the user device to separately request return-to-storage status data for the order; receiving, at the user device via the server, 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, from the computing system at the user device via the server, information that, when processed by the user device, 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, at the 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, wherein the bag includes at least one special item; receiving, from the computing system at the user device via the server, information that, when processed by the user device, 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 to indicate that the selected bag has been selected for return to the respective hold location; receiving, at the 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 transmitting, by the user device to the computing system via the server, return-status data generated based on a scan of the selected bag, a user confirmation indicating that the selected bag has been returned to the respective hold location, or both; receiving, from the computing system at the user device via the server, information that, when processed by the user device, causes the user device to update the indication of the selected bag based on the return-status data; 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 claimed invention and 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 steps followed in order fulfillment and ensuring that the perishable items avoid spoilage. 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 claim limitations detail various analysis performed that are used in order to make a decision on how to proceed based on the observation and evaluation of 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 pop out window, one or more sensors, 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 and one or more sensors amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (scanning orders for fulfillment, and data gathering for order 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
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 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 to 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 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 to indicate that the selected bag has been selected for return to the respective hold location; 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 to 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 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 to indicate that the selected bag has been selected for return to the respective hold location; 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
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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 3629
Prosecution Insights