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 .
Priority
Applicant claims priority to provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 63/366,018, filed 06/08/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 6/09/2023 was previously considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 11/10/2025, have been entered. Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 15, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Specification
Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the Specification filed 11/10/2025.
Indication of Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 11/10/2025, are novel in view of the prior art and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 1-8, are directed to a machine, the method, as claimed in claims 9-14, are directed to a process, and the non-transitory computer readable medium, as claimed in claims 15-20, are directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 9, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
receiving a request for a fulfillment, wherein the request identifies a plurality of items for an order, wherein the request for the fulfillment is received;
determining, for each of the plurality of items, at least one available fulfillment option based on a corresponding item type;
determining a fulfillment intent based on previous transactions associated with the request;
receiving a first basket type characterizing a first type of items and a second basket type characterizing a second type of items;
receiving a key mapping table comprising a first key that maps the first basket type to a first fulfillment option and a second key that maps the second basket type to a second fulfillment option;
determining the first fulfillment option for a first set of items in the plurality of items based on the first type of items of the first basket type, the first key, and the fulfillment intent;
determining the second fulfillment option for a second set of items in the plurality of items based on the second type of items of the second basket type, the second key, and the fulfillment intent;
generating a first fulfillment plan including the first fulfillment option for the first set of items in the plurality of items and the second fulfillment option for the second set of items in the plurality of items;
generating the fulfillment including the first fulfillment plan, wherein the fulfillment includes a first portion identifying the first fulfillment option and each of the first set of items and a second portion identifying the second fulfillment option and each of the second set of items; and
transmitting the fulfillment including the first fulfillment plan for display.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 9 are certain methods of organizing human activity because determining and transmitting fulfillment options for a plurality of items for an order is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determining” fulfillment options and “generating” a plan is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Thus, claim 9 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 1 and 15 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 9. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 1 and 15 as described above for independent claim 9.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In this case, representative claim 9 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
receiving, over a network, a request for a fulfillment interface, wherein the request identifies a plurality of items for an order, wherein the request for the fulfillment interface is received from a first device;
determining, for each of the plurality of items, at least one available fulfillment option based on a corresponding item type;
determining a fulfillment intent based on previous transactions associated with the request;
receiving, from a database and over the network, a first basket type characterizing a first type of items and a second basket type characterizing a second type of items;
receiving, from a database and over the network, a key mapping table comprising a first key that maps the first basket type to a first fulfillment option and a second key that maps the second basket type to a second fulfillment option;
determining the first fulfillment option for a first set of items in the plurality of items based on the first type of items of the first basket type, the first key, and the fulfillment intent;
determining the second fulfillment option for a second set of items in the plurality of items based on the second type of items of the second basket type, the second key, and the fulfillment intent;
generating a first fulfillment plan including the first fulfillment option for the first set of items in the plurality of items and the second fulfillment option for the second set of items in the plurality of items;
generating the fulfillment interface including the first fulfillment plan, wherein the fulfillment interface includes a first portion identifying the first fulfillment option and each of the first set of items and a second portion identifying the second fulfillment option and each of the second set of items; and
transmitting, over the network, the fulfillment interface including the first fulfillment plan to the first device for display.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 9 are recited 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 the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1-2; paragraphs [0030]- [0046] and [0070]). This description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
In addition to the above, the recited receiving, transmitting, and displaying steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 9 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Independent claims 1 and 15 recite the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon; and a processor configured to read the instructions” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause a device to perform operations” in addition to the additional elements already addressed in the rejection for independent claim 9. However, these additional elements taken alone or in combination are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as these additional elements are merely generic devices and do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks). Therefore, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1 and 15 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 9, and 15, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 15 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). 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 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.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 15 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 15 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1, 9, and 15 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18-20
Dependent claim(s) 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18-20, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1, 9, and 15 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1, 9, and 15.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 set forth:
determine a second fulfillment plan including a third fulfillment option for a third set of items, wherein the third set of items includes at least one item selected from the first set of items and at least one item selected from the second set of items, wherein the second fulfillment plan is generated based on the at least one available fulfillment option for each of the plurality of items, the customer intent, and the first fulfillment option.
display a selected one of the first fulfillment plan or the second fulfillment plan, wherein the fulfillment interface is configured to display the first portion and the second portion when the first fulfillment plan is selected, and wherein the fulfillment interface is configured to display the a third portion including the third fulfillment option and the third set of items when the second fulfillment plan is selected.
receive a selection of the first fulfillment plan or the second fulfillment plan.
wherein the first fulfillment option and the second fulfillment option are selected based on a predetermined ranking of fulfillment options for the customer intent.
wherein the customer intent is an explicit intent, and wherein the processor is configured to receive the explicit intent from the first device.
wherein the customer intent is an implicit intent, and wherein the processor is configured to generate the implicit intent based on the plurality of items and historic order data associated with the first device.
determining a second fulfillment plan including a third fulfillment option for a third set of items, wherein the third set of items includes at least one item selected from the first set of items and at least one item selected from the second set of items, wherein the second fulfillment plan is generated based on the at least one available fulfillment option for each of the plurality of items, the customer intent, and the first fulfillment option, wherein the fulfillment interface is configured to display a selected one of the first fulfillment plan or the second fulfillment plan, wherein the fulfillment interface is configured to display the first portion and the second portion when the first fulfillment plan is selected, and wherein the fulfillment interface is configured to display the a third portion including the third fulfillment option and the third set of items when the second fulfillment plan is selected.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of determining and transmitting fulfillment options for a plurality of items for an order. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1, 9, and 15, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1, 9, and 15.
Thus, dependent 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 are ineligible.
Regarding claim 5, 11, 17
Dependent claim(s) 5, 11, 17 sets forth:
generate a fulfillment selection message identifying the selection of the first fulfillment plan or the second fulfillment plan; and transmit the fulfillment selection message to a second computing device configured to cause fulfillment of the order.
receiving a selection of at least one of the first fulfillment plan or the second fulfillment plan; generating a fulfillment selection message identifying the selection of the first fulfillment plan or the second fulfillment plan; and transmitting the fulfillment selection message to a second computing device configured to cause fulfillment of the order.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of determining and transmitting fulfillment options for a plurality of items for an order. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “a second computing device”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 1, 9, and 15, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0030]- [0046] and [0070] indicate that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Further, the “computing device” is recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 5, 11, 17 are also ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on page 12 of the Remarks filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the currently amended claims. Accordingly the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 12 of the Remarks filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the previous drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the currently amended Specification filed 11/10/2025. Accordingly the previous drawing objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 14-21 of the Remarks filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, on pages 15-17 Applicant argues the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that in Prong One examiner evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Despite Applicant’s assertion to the contrary, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly set forth or describe abstract idea(s) for those reasons set forth previously. Further, as argued on pages 16-17, “a generated first fulfilment plan that includes a first portion identifying a determined first fulfillment option and each of a first set of items, and a second portion identifying a determined second fulfillment option and each of a second set of items”, “a determination of “best-fit” fulfillment plans that can provide more efficient deliveries”, and “displaying specific fulfillment plans to each specific user based on that specific user’s purchased items” are abstract ideas known from the pre-Internet world and the claimed solution is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Therefore, Applicant’s own assertion that the claims are directed towards “determining fulfillment plans” and (page 17 of the Remarks filed 11/10/2025) is itself an abstract idea and underscores the Examiner’s findings under Prong One. Examiner notes the arguments directed to practical applications and computer improvements is analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two and not within Step 2A, Prong One.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues on pages 17-20 the claims are not “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 2 as the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner agrees that the amended limitations including generating and transmitting “an interface,” “a network,” a first “device,” and a “database” do not fall within the abstract idea, the Examiner disagrees that these elements impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. As claimed, these elements represent the mere use of generic computing components to facilitate the abstract idea. Notably, the specification provides only a brief description of an interface, a network, a first device, and a database (see Figs. 1-2; paragraphs [0030]- [0046] and [0070]).
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to interfaces, networks, devices, and/or databases, and is specific only in their use in facilitating the abstract idea of determining and transmitting fulfillment options for a plurality of items for an order. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is akin to ineligible decisions such as Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible), or, Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims contained no restriction on the manner in which the additional elements perform these claimed functions). The alleged improvement by Applicant is at best a bare assertion of an improvement sans sufficient detail to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the alleged improvement to the technical field.
Unlike the claims in Core Wireless, the specification as filed does not reveal to one of ordinary skill in the art the Applicant has provided an improvement to technology of user interfaces. Further, the specification as filed does not reveal to one of ordinary skill in the art the Applicant has provided an improvement to networks, devices, and/or databases, or the like. Nor does the specification provide technical detail of how a device executing instructions modifies the user interface (i.e., the argued improvement of the computer generated interface) differently than from generic devices displaying information via an interface (i.e., the specification merely sets forth at a high level of generality the use of interfaces for displaying information on generic computing devices via a browser). Additionally, while Applicant argues a specific fulfillment interface is generated based on generated fulfillment plans and provides a user a “particular manner” of presenting the fulfillment options for the first and second set of items, Examiner notes the Specification and drawings describe this action as merely “displaying” information such as selection choices (see Figs. 2 and 8A-8F; paragraphs [0045], [0060]-[0062], and [0068]).
While Applicant argues the instant claims are similar to the eligible claims in Enfish, Core Wireless, McRO, and Ex Parte Desjardins, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Core Wireless, the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims of DDR recited no analogous real-world application and included specific links that overrode the conventional way a processor operated and therefore, they were a technological solution for a specifically technological problem. In Desjardins, the Appeals Review Panel (APR) determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continued learning systems, which was directed to improvements in the machine learning technology itself and these improvements were additionally recited in the claimed invention (Appeal 2024-000567) (see also MPEP 2106.05(a)).
The character of the claims as a whole is not directed to improving computer performance or improving computer technology and do not recite any such benefit. The claims of the instant application, however, merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. The claims lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the myriad of ineligible court decisions that employed generic computer components at a high-level to achieve improvements in commercial processes. Further, there is no indication from either the claims or the specification that the invention seeks to modify conventional operation of any such technology. Here again, the Examiner emphasizes the failure of the disclosure to set forth or describe the amended features, or any improvements that are achieved from or made relative to another technology or technical field. Unlike the claims in Desjardins, the claims and specification do not recite improving the performance of a machine learning model and the instant claims and specification do not constitute an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the improvements manifested by the claimed invention are improvements to the abstract idea itself, not the computer or another technology or technical field. Applicant’s own argued disclosure reveals the impetus is improving the commercial process, no in technology:
[0003]Retailers may provide customers various fulfillment options when items are purchased. For example, a retailer may offer a customer the option of picking up purchased items at a retail location, or of delivery of the purchased items to the customer's home. When, for instance, a customer purchases an item on a retailer's website, the customer may have the option of choosing whether to have the item delivered, or whether to pick up the item at a local location of the retailer. Customers may have varying preferences for merchandise fulfillment, and purchased items may be better suited for one fulfillment option over another. There are opportunities to improve current fulfillment systems.
[0005]The embodiments described herein may automatically determine a fulfillment (e.g., a default fulfillment) for purchased items based on determined customer preferences and attributes of the purchased items. The embodiments may determine a “best-fit” fulfillment plan that addresses possibly competing considerations on, for example, customer intent, fulfillment speed, customer convenience, cost to the customer, and cost to the retailer, among others. Further, the embodiments may provide an option to switch to an alternative fulfillment option if the customer prefers to do so. The embodiments provide a fulfillment system that unifies the grocery and GM shopping experience while reducing a cognitive load of decision making for the customer, while also balancing between providing the customer with fulfillment flexibility and guided experience. Persons of ordinary skill in the art having the benefit of these disclosures would recognize these and other benefits as well.
[0028]The unification of the customer experience for grocery and general merchandise (GM) items presents several complications such as the choice of multiple fulfillment options and varying item fulfillment eligibilities. Taking into consideration these complexities, the embodiments may determine best-fit fulfillment plans that address competing considerations on customer intent, speed, customer convenience, cost to the customer, and cost to retailer. The embodiments may determine customer related inputs such as customer intent, address, associated stores, reserved slots, and items in a checkout basket, and may further determine supply chain network state, capacities, and capabilities, and applies logic (e.g., sequential rule-based or machine learning based algorithms) to determine a best-fit fulfillment plan for a given basket (e.g., order). The logic may apply fulfillment prioritization plans and plan mapping templates to comprehensively address all possible combinatorial use cases that can arise due to a customer selecting varying combinations of item types.
In review of the claimed invention, and in consideration of the specification as originally filed, the Examiner asserts that:
(i) the claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process, and,
(ii) the specification, as originally filed, does not provide sufficient discloser or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
The problem of determining and transmitting fulfillment options for a plurality of items for an order is one that arises squarely in the commercial realm, and does not rise to improving the functioning of the computer or another technology or technical field. The improvement manifested by the claimed invention is an improvement to the abstract idea itself, rather than the functioning of the computer or another technology or technical field, and is achieved leveraging generic computing hardware and software set forth at a high level of generality.
Even assuming a relationship of the claimed invention to another technology or technical field, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological process, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure most provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Even when a specification explicitly asserts an improvement, examiner should not determine a claim improves technology when only a bare assertion of an improvement is present without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Further, the instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” requiring the generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality or requiring the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces to improve a technical process.
Therefore, the instant claims are unlike the claims in Enfish, Core Wireless, McRO, and Ex Parte Desjardins and the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and maintains the rejection Step 2A, Prong Two.
Accordantly, Examiner maintains the claims do not recite specific technological improvements and the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues on pages 20-21 that the claims recite “significantly more” than any alleged abstract idea under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above in the full rejection of the claims, the claimed additional elements were evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of the claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). 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 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. While Applicant argues on page 21 that “the claimed subject matter is confined to a ‘particular useful application’ that allows each user to be presented with a specific fulfillment plan based on that specific user’s purchased items,” Examiner notes this argument is directed to the abstract idea itself and does not argue any additional elements. As referenced to both previously and above, with respect to generating and transmitting “an interface,” transmitting and receiving data over “a network,” displaying and processing data using a first “device,” and storing and retrieving information from a “database,” the Examiner underscores that these limitations are being performed by a generic processor and merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The background also states that the generic processor performs these limitations at a high level of generality (see Figs. 1-2; paragraphs [0030]- [0046] and [0070]. This description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer.
Further, as referenced to both previously and above, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) outlines various computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Most notably, the Examiner pointed out that the claimed invention utilized receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers. As these operations have been expressly noted by the courts, the Examiner has indeed provided factual evidence to the Examiner’s findings.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually and do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 12-14 of the Remarks filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the currently amended claims. Accordingly the previous 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103 rejections are withdrawn.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference A of the Notice of References Cited Tepfenhart, Jr. et al. (US 2019/0122245 A1) discloses using multiple different fulfillment channels or methods for multiple items in a single order based on available fulfillment channels associated with each of the items.
Reference B of the Notice of References Cited Patel et al. (US 2020/0357040 A1) discloses coordinating activities to facilitate fulfillment of orders for items including preferred sources.
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 LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688