DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the Amendments filed on 12/18/2025.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 12/18/2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 6-7, 11, and 16-18 have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 08/14/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
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 .
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 a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-at least one processor coupled with a memory; and
-a smart order controller implemented at least partially in hardware and configured to cause the mobile device to:
-transmit a subscription order to a fulfillment service for one or more items;
-determine an event that affects a quantity of an item included in the subscription order, the event determined as a travel-related event of a recipient of the subscription order based on one or more travel-related data; and
-transmit, to the fulfillment service, an autonomous request without user input to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on the determination of the event
The above limitations recite the concept of modifying the quantity of an item in a subscription order. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations of transmit a subscription order to a fulfillment service for one or more items; and determine an event that affects a quantity of an item included in the subscription order, the event determined as a travel-related event of a recipient of the subscription order based on one or more travel-related data are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. For example, “transmit” and “determine” in the context of this claim encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Similarly, the limitations of transmit, to the fulfillment service, an autonomous request without user input to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on the determination of the event is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the request is an autonomous request, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “autonomous” language, “transmit” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-at least one processor coupled with a memory; and
-a smart order controller implemented at least partially in hardware and configured to cause the mobile device to:
-transmit a subscription order to a fulfillment service for one or more items;
-determine an event that affects a quantity of an item included in the subscription order, the event determined as a travel-related event of a recipient of the subscription order based on one or more travel-related data; and
-transmit, to the fulfillment service, an autonomous request without user input to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on the determination of the event
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [0019] of Applicant’s specification – “The system 100 includes one or more devices, such as a mobile device 102 and/or a server device 104. Examples of mobile devices include at least one of any type of a wireless device, mobile device, mobile phone, flip phone, client device, game controller, wearable computing device, camera device, display device, tablet, computing device, communication device, entertainment device, gaming device, media playback device, any other type of computing, consumer, and/or electronic device, and/or a system of any combination of such device.” Specifically, the additional elements of a mobile device, at least one processor coupled with a memory, a smart order controller implemented at least partially in hardware, and an autonomous request are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of transmitting data and determining data) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Claim 11 is a server device reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 11 recites the additional elements of a server device, at least one processor coupled with a memory, a smart order controller implemented at least partially in hardware, and a mobile device, however, claim 11 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Claim 18 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 18 recites the additional element of an autonomous request, however, claim 18 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 18 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20, 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 claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 2, 12, and 19-20 do not recite any farther additional elements, and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. Dependent claims 3-10 and 13-17 recite the additional elements of the smart order controller, the mobile device, autonomously modifying, and the server device, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 11, and 18, dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. modifying the quantity of an item in a subscription order) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delaney et al. (US 2020/0192310 A1), hereinafter Delaney.
Regarding claim 1, Delaney discloses a mobile device, comprising:
-at least one processor coupled with a memory (Delaney, see at least: “the mobile phone 404 can include a processor, memory and instructions executable by the processor” [0065]); and
-a smart order controller implemented at least partially in hardware and configured to cause the mobile device (Delaney, see at least: “one or more instances of a controller 960 can exist, which may be implemented, for example, via the mobile device 956 (e.g., via an app, etc.) [i.e. a smart order controller implemented at least partially in hardware and configured to cause the mobile device to:], via the hub 910 (e.g., via an application, etc.), and/or via a remote network resource or resources” [0084] and “the mobile device 1007 can include one or more apps 1052, 1054 and 1056. Such apps may be associated with the VEA 1005 and/or one or more other types of services, devices, etc. As an example, an app may be associated with a subscription model for goods [i.e. a smart order controller implemented at least partially in hardware and configured to cause the mobile device to:]. In such an example, the app may provide data to the VEA 1005 and/or the VEA 1005 may provide data to the app” [0085]) to:
-transmit a subscription order to a fulfillment service for one or more items (Delaney, see at least: “the mobile device 1007 can include one or more apps 1052, 1054 and 1056. Such apps may be associated with the VEA 1005 and/or one or more other types of services, devices, etc. As an example, an app may be associated with a subscription model for goods [i.e. configured to cause the mobile device to: transmit a subscription order]. In such an example, the app may provide data to the VEA 1005 and/or the VEA 1005 may provide data to the app” [0085] and “Various types of subscription models for goods allow users to maintain inventory of consumable items without having to regularly remember to place an order manually [i.e. configured to cause the mobile device to: transmit a subscription order]” [0040] and “A subscription model can specify a schedule (e.g., a frequency, etc.) for delivery of a quantity of goods (e.g., packaged goods) to a site. Such a schedule can be a fixed schedule where, for example, an interval between deliveries is fixed as a time interval (e.g., every X days, every Y weeks, every Z months, etc.). For example, in FIG. 1, each of the sites 120 can have one or more subscriptions with corresponding subscription models that relate to one or more of the suppliers 110 for delivery of packaged goods [i.e. to a fulfillment service]” [0031] and “a system may access one or more types of data and/or generate one or more types of data (e.g., calendar entry data, seasonality data, geolocation data, etc.). As an example, a system can transmit one or more instructions (e.g., commands, triggers, etc.) to one or more entities (e.g., supplier, fulfillment center, etc.) to execute an order (e.g., a chain of actions that results in delivery of goods) [i.e. transmit a subscription order to a fulfillment service for one or more items]” [0044]);
-determine an event that affects a quantity of an item included in the subscription order, the event determined as a travel-related event of a recipient of the subscription order based on one or more travel-related data (Delaney, see at least: “a system can include instructions that, based on at least a portion of data, determine an occupancy schedule for a site. For example, consider data generated by mobile device circuitry of a mobile device where the circuitry is, or includes, wearable mobile device circuitry of a wearable mobile device … As an example, a system can include instructions to control issuance of an instruction based at least in part on a comparison where the instruction can be issued based at least in part on an occupancy schedule for a site [i.e. determine an event that affects a quantity of an item included in the subscription order]. For example, where a site is unoccupied due to a calendared vacation (e.g., as may be indicated in data generated in a calendar app of a mobile device, etc.) [i.e. the event determined as a travel-related event of a recipient of the subscription order based on one or more travel-related data], a controller may issue an instruction that halts [i.e. that affects a quantity of an item included in the subscription order] and/or reschedules a packaging process to occur at a later time (e.g., later than a predetermined time). While a calendar is mentioned, as an example, a system can learn occupancy, which may span a period of weeks, months or more. For example, consider a “snowbird” that occupies one site during the summer months and another site during winter months” [0115]); and
-transmit, to the fulfillment service, an autonomous request without user input to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on the determination of the event (Delaney, see at least: “the system 100 can provide for automatic adjustment [i.e. transmit an autonomous request without user input] of control data such that control data can differ from that of a base-state, which may be an initial state, for example, based on an individual's estimated needs/usage of goods” [0051] and “a system may access one or more types of data and/or generate one or more types of data (e.g., calendar entry data, seasonality data, geolocation data, etc.). As an example, a system can transmit one or more instructions (e.g., commands, triggers, etc.) to one or more entities (e.g., supplier, fulfillment center, etc.) [i.e. transmit, to the fulfillment service] to execute an order (e.g., a chain of actions that results in delivery of goods)” [0044] and “a system can include instructions that, based on at least a portion of data, determine an occupancy schedule for a site. For example, consider data generated by mobile device circuitry of a mobile device where the circuitry is, or includes, wearable mobile device circuitry of a wearable mobile device … As an example, a system can include instructions to control issuance of an instruction based at least in part on a comparison where the instruction can be issued based at least in part on an occupancy schedule for a site. For example, where a site is unoccupied due to a calendared vacation [i.e. based on the determination of the event] (e.g., as may be indicated in data generated in a calendar app of a mobile device, etc.), a controller may issue an instruction that halts and/or reschedules a packaging process [i.e. an autonomous request without user input to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order] to occur at a later time (e.g., later than a predetermined time)” [0115] and “an adjustment may include a frequency adjustment where an interval between deliveries is shortened or lengthened and/or where an amount of goods per package is adjusted. As to the latter, consider control data as including amount of goods per package data. In such an example, control data can be adjusted without changing time but rather changing an amount of goods at each time (e.g., to be more or lesser) [i.e. to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order]” [0082]).
Regarding claim 2, Delaney discloses the mobile device of claim 1. Delaney further discloses:
-wherein the determination that the event affects the quantity of the item is based on the item being perishable (Delaney, see at least: “a system such as the system 100 can consider physical characteristics of material itself (e.g., perishable [i.e. wherein the determination that the event affects the quantity of the item is based on the item being perishable], shelf-life, decay, efficacy, storage conditions such as temperature and/or humidity, etc.) and actions taken with respect to the material, for example, as to its intended purpose (e.g., consumption, usage, etc.). Referring again to the Noyes-Whitney model as an example, consider use of a relationship that is part of a time-dependent model that accounts for material itself (e.g., Csm(t)) and another relationship that is part of the time-dependent model that accounts for action related depletion (Csa(t)). As example, each part may utilize an adjustable half-life type of model that is adjusted in response to data” [0026]).
Regarding claim 3, Delaney discloses the mobile device of claim 1. Delaney further discloses:
-wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on the event including at least one of more people who will use or consume the item, or less people who will use or consume the item (Delaney, see at least: “one or more instances of a controller 960 can exist, which may be implemented, for example, via the mobile device 956 (e.g., via an app, etc.) [i.e. wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to], via the hub 910 (e.g., via an application, etc.), and/or via a remote network resource or resources” [0084] and “a device can include circuitry that can respond to questions about items in a calendar, which may be locally and/or remotely based (e.g., local to a device in memory of the device, remotely stored in cloud-based resources, etc.). For example, consider a VEA uttering “Are you going on vacation for the next two weeks?” In such an example, an individual may respond with a “yes” [i.e. based on the event including at least one of more people who will use or consume the item, or less people who will use or consume the item] or a “no” or, for example, “I don't know, remind me in a day”. Such an approach can allow a system to acquire data via prompts, which can be generated using data indicative of a consumption pattern(s) for goods in relationship to a subscription for the goods [i.e. modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on the event]” [0094]).
Regarding claim 4, Delaney discloses the mobile device of claim 1. Delaney further discloses:
-wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on the event including at least one of upcoming scheduled travel, extended travel days, or reduced travel days (Delaney, see at least: “one or more instances of a controller 960 can exist, which may be implemented, for example, via the mobile device 956 (e.g., via an app, etc.) [i.e. wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to], via the hub 910 (e.g., via an application, etc.), and/or via a remote network resource or resources” [0084] and “where a site is unoccupied due to a calendared vacation [i.e. based on the event including at least one of upcoming scheduled travel, extended travel days, or reduced travel days] (e.g., as may be indicated in data generated in a calendar app of a mobile device, etc.), a controller may issue an instruction that halts and/or reschedules a packaging process to occur at a later time (e.g., later than a predetermined time) [i.e. modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order]” [0115]).
Regarding claim 5, Delaney discloses the mobile device of claim 1. Delaney further discloses:
-wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on at least one of a current geographic location of a delivery recipient relative to a delivery location of the subscription order, or an estimation of an arrival time of the delivery recipient to the delivery location based on the current geographic location of the delivery recipient (Delaney, see at least: “one or more instances of a controller 960 can exist, which may be implemented, for example, via the mobile device 956 (e.g., via an app, etc.) [i.e. wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to], via the hub 910 (e.g., via an application, etc.), and/or via a remote network resource or resources” [0084] and “the data associated with one or more of the remote facilities can include geolocation data [i.e. based on at least one of a current geographic location of a delivery recipient]. Such data can be utilized directly and/or indirectly by a controller such as the controller 160 of FIG. 1. For example, consider such data being utilized to estimate one or more of a consumption rate, an occupancy schedule at a site [i.e. based on at least one of a current geographic location of a delivery recipient], etc.” [0074] and “As an example, a system can include instructions to control issuance of an instruction based at least in part on a comparison where the instruction can be issued based at least in part on an occupancy schedule for a site [i.e. based on at least one of a current geographic location of a delivery recipient relative to a delivery location of the subscription order]. For example, where a site is unoccupied due to a calendared vacation (e.g., as may be indicated in data generated in a calendar app of a mobile device, etc.), a controller may issue an instruction that halts and/or reschedules [i.e. modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order] a packaging process to occur at a later time (e.g., later than a predetermined time)” [0115]).
Regarding claim 9, Delaney discloses the mobile device of claim 1. Delaney further discloses:
-wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to permit transmission of the request to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on an approval from a delivery recipient in response to a notification and request to modify the subscription order (Delaney, see at least: “one or more instances of a controller 960 can exist, which may be implemented, for example, via the mobile device 956 (e.g., via an app, etc.) [i.e. wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to], via the hub 910 (e.g., via an application, etc.), and/or via a remote network resource or resources” [0084] and “consider tortilla chips which may be on a digital subscription model list. As an example, transaction data of an individual as indicated via a mobile device pay technology, a debit card or credit card technology, etc., may be access to determine whether the individual has acted in a manner that impacts a subscription model. For example, an individual may have a subscription model for delivery of tortilla chips and transaction data may indicate that the individual purchased tortilla chips (e.g., or a substitute such as potato chips). In such an example, the transaction data may be accessed and utilized in conjunction with a time-dependent model to determine whether control data is to be adjusted. As an example, a system can include generating a message and communicating the message to a user, optionally via a graphical user interface (GUI). In such an example, the message may say, “you just bought chips, adjust subscription model for chips?” Where a user interacts with the GUI to provide an answer, a system can adjust (e.g., “yes”) [i.e. permit transmission of the request to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on an approval from a delivery recipient in response to a notification and request to modify the subscription order] or not adjust (“no”) the subscription model. Where the system has access to a calendar with, for example, an entry that states “house warming party”, the system may determine that the user does not want to adjust the subscription model and thereby forego messaging the user” [0047]).
Regarding claim 11, Delaney discloses a server device configured to provide a fulfillment service, the server device comprising:
-at least one processor coupled with a memory (Delaney, see at least: “the controller 160 can include a processor 161; memory 162 accessible to the processor 161; processor-executable instructions 163 stored in the memory and executable by the processor 161 to instruct the system” [0028]); and
-a smart order controller implemented at least partially in hardware and configured to cause the server device (Delaney, see at least: “the controller 160 can be a server or be embedded in a server [i.e. a smart order controller implemented at least partially in hardware and configured to cause the server device to:] (e.g., consider a cloud-based server, etc.)” [0034]) to:
-receive, from a mobile device, a subscription order for one or more items (Delaney, see at least: “the mobile device 1007 can include one or more apps 1052, 1054 and 1056. Such apps may be associated with the VEA 1005 and/or one or more other types of services, devices, etc. As an example, an app [i.e. configured to cause the server device to:] may be associated with a subscription model for goods [i.e. receive, from a mobile device, a subscription order]. In such an example, the app may provide data to the VEA 1005 and/or the VEA 1005 may provide data to the app” [0085] and “Various types of subscription models for goods allow users to maintain inventory of consumable items without having to regularly remember to place an order manually [i.e. receive, from a mobile device, a subscription order for one or more items]” [0040]);
-determine an event that affects a quantity of an item included in the subscription order, the event determined as a travel-related event of a recipient of the subscription order based on one or more travel-related data (Delaney, see at least: “a system can include instructions that, based on at least a portion of data, determine an occupancy schedule for a site. For example, consider data generated by mobile device circuitry of a mobile device where the circuitry is, or includes, wearable mobile device circuitry of a wearable mobile device … As an example, a system can include instructions to control issuance of an instruction based at least in part on a comparison where the instruction can be issued based at least in part on an occupancy schedule for a site [i.e. determine an event that affects a quantity of an item included in the subscription order]. For example, where a site is unoccupied due to a calendared vacation (e.g., as may be indicated in data generated in a calendar app of a mobile device, etc.) [i.e. the event determined as a travel-related event of a recipient of the subscription order based on one or more travel-related data], a controller may issue an instruction that halts [i.e. that affects a quantity of an item included in the subscription order] and/or reschedules a packaging process to occur at a later time (e.g., later than a predetermined time). While a calendar is mentioned, as an example, a system can learn occupancy, which may span a period of weeks, months or more. For example, consider a “snowbird” that occupies one site during the summer months and another site during winter months” [0115]); and
-transmit, to the mobile device, a request to modify, without user input, the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on the determination of the event (Delaney, see at least: (Delaney, see at least: “consider tortilla chips which may be on a digital subscription model list. As an example, transaction data of an individual as indicated via a mobile device pay technology, a debit card or credit card technology, etc., may be access to determine whether the individual has acted in a manner that impacts a subscription model. For example, an individual may have a subscription model for delivery of tortilla chips and transaction data may indicate that the individual purchased tortilla chips (e.g., or a substitute such as potato chips). In such an example, the transaction data may be accessed and utilized in conjunction with a time-dependent model to determine whether control data is to be adjusted. As an example, a system can include generating a message and communicating the message to a user, optionally via a graphical user interface (GUI). In such an example, the message may say, “you just bought chips, adjust subscription model for chips?” [i.e. transmit, to the mobile device, a request to modify, without user input, the quantity of the item included in the subscription order] Where a user interacts with the GUI to provide an answer, a system can adjust (e.g., “yes”) or not adjust (“no”) the subscription model. Where the system has access to a calendar with, for example, an entry that states “house warming party”, the system may determine that the user does not want to adjust the subscription model and thereby forego messaging the user” [0047] and “a system can include instructions that, based on at least a portion of data, determine an occupancy schedule for a site. For example, consider data generated by mobile device circuitry of a mobile device where the circuitry is, or includes, wearable mobile device circuitry of a wearable mobile device … As an example, a system can include instructions to control issuance of an instruction based at least in part on a comparison where the instruction can be issued based at least in part on an occupancy schedule for a site. For example, where a site is unoccupied due to a calendared vacation [i.e. based on the determination of the event] (e.g., as may be indicated in data generated in a calendar app of a mobile device, etc.), a controller may issue an instruction that halts and/or reschedules a packaging process to occur at a later time (e.g., later than a predetermined time)” [0115] Examiner notes that “transmit, to the mobile device, a request to modify, without user input” is interpreted in light of [0057] of Applicant’s spec as determining what ‘request to modify’ to transmit to the mobile device without a user providing explicit input that an even occurred beforehand as the specification does not describe).
Regarding claim 12, Delaney discloses the server device of claim 11. Delaney further discloses:
-wherein the determination that the event affects the quantity of the item is based on the item being perishable (Delaney, see at least: “a system such as the system 100 can consider physical characteristics of material itself (e.g., perishable [i.e. wherein the determination that the event affects the quantity of the item is based on the item being perishable], shelf-life, decay, efficacy, storage conditions such as temperature and/or humidity, etc.) and actions taken with respect to the material, for example, as to its intended purpose (e.g., consumption, usage, etc.). Referring again to the Noyes-Whitney model as an example, consider use of a relationship that is part of a time-dependent model that accounts for material itself (e.g., Csm(t)) and another relationship that is part of the time-dependent model that accounts for action related depletion (Csa(t)). As example, each part may utilize an adjustable half-life type of model that is adjusted in response to data” [0026]).
Regarding claim 13, Delaney discloses the server device of claim 11. Delaney further discloses:
-wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the server device to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on the event including at least one of more people who will use or consume the item, or less people who will use or consume the item (Delaney, see at least: “the controller 160 can be a server or be embedded in a server [i.e. wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the server device to] (e.g., consider a cloud-based server, etc.)” [0034] and “a device can include circuitry that can respond to questions about items in a calendar, which may be locally and/or remotely based (e.g., local to a device in memory of the device, remotely stored in cloud-based resources, etc.). For example, consider a VEA uttering “Are you going on vacation for the next two weeks?” In such an example, an individual may respond with a “yes” [i.e. based on the event including at least one of more people who will use or consume the item, or less people who will use or consume the item] or a “no” or, for example, “I don't know, remind me in a day”. Such an approach can allow a system to acquire data via prompts, which can be generated using data indicative of a consumption pattern(s) for goods in relationship to a subscription for the goods [i.e. modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on the event]” [0094]).
Regarding claim 14, Delaney discloses the server device of claim 11. Delaney further discloses:
-wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the server device to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on the event including at least one of upcoming scheduled travel, extended travel days, or reduced travel days (Delaney, see at least: “the controller 160 can be a server or be embedded in a server [i.e. wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the server device to] (e.g., consider a cloud-based server, etc.)” [0034] and “where a site is unoccupied due to a calendared vacation [i.e. based on the event including at least one of upcoming scheduled travel, extended travel days, or reduced travel days] (e.g., as may be indicated in data generated in a calendar app of a mobile device, etc.), a controller may issue an instruction that halts and/or reschedules a packaging process to occur at a later time (e.g., later than a predetermined time) [i.e. modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order]” [0115]).
Regarding claim 15, Delaney discloses the server device of claim 11. Delaney further discloses:
-wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the server device to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on at least one of a current geographic location of a delivery recipient relative to a delivery location of the subscription order, or an estimation of an arrival time of the delivery recipient to the delivery location based on the current geographic location of the delivery recipient (Delaney, see at least: “the controller 160 can be a server or be embedded in a server [i.e. wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the server device to] (e.g., consider a cloud-based server, etc.)” [0034] and “the data associated with one or more of the remote facilities can include geolocation data [i.e. based on at least one of a current geographic location of a delivery recipient]. Such data can be utilized directly and/or indirectly by a controller such as the controller 160 of FIG. 1. For example, consider such data being utilized to estimate one or more of a consumption rate, an occupancy schedule at a site [i.e. based on at least one of a current geographic location of a delivery recipient], etc.” [0074] and “As an example, a system can include instructions to control issuance of an instruction based at least in part on a comparison where the instruction can be issued based at least in part on an occupancy schedule for a site [i.e. based on at least one of a current geographic location of a delivery recipient relative to a delivery location of the subscription order]. For example, where a site is unoccupied due to a calendared vacation (e.g., as may be indicated in data generated in a calendar app of a mobile device, etc.), a controller may issue an instruction that halts and/or reschedules [i.e. modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order] a packaging process to occur at a later time (e.g., later than a predetermined time)” [0115]).
Claims 18-20 recite limitations directed towards a method. The limitations recited in claims 18-20 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 1-3, respectively, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claims 1-3, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney in view of Madjd et al. (US 2015/0269348 A1), hereinafter Madjd.
Regarding claim 6, Delaney discloses the mobile device of claim 1. Delaney further discloses:
-wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to autonomously modify, based on mobile device data and without user input, the subscription order based on the event (Delaney, see at least: “one or more instances of a controller 960 can exist, which may be implemented, for example, via the mobile device 956 (e.g., via an app, etc.) [i.e. wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to], via the hub 910 (e.g., via an application, etc.), and/or via a remote network resource or resources” [0084] and “a system can include instructions that, based on at least a portion of data, determine an occupancy schedule for a site. For example, consider data generated by mobile device circuitry of a mobile device where the circuitry is, or includes, wearable mobile device circuitry of a wearable mobile device … As an example, a system can include instructions to control issuance of an instruction based at least in part on a comparison where the instruction can be issued based at least in part on an occupancy schedule for a site. For example, where a site is unoccupied due to a calendared vacation [i.e. the subscription order based on the event] (e.g., as may be indicated in data generated in a calendar app of a mobile device, etc.), a controller may issue an instruction that halts and/or reschedules a packaging process [i.e. cause the mobile device to autonomously modify, based on mobile device data and without user input] to occur at a later time (e.g., later than a predetermined time)” [0115] and “the system 100 can provide for automatic adjustment [i.e. cause the mobile device to autonomously modify] of control data such that control data can differ from that of a base-state, which may be an initial state, for example, based on an individual's estimated needs/usage of goods” [0051]).
Delaney does not explicitly disclose modifying the subscription order based on a health event detected as a health issue of a delivery recipient.
Madjd, however, teaches a subscription for ongoing delivery (i.e. [0084]), including the known technique of modifying the subscription order based on a health event including at least one of a detected as a health issue of a delivery recipient (Madjd, see at least: “a method for updating a health management system. In a first step, an automated action plan is activated. In a second step, a user interacts with the action plan. In a third step, the automated action plan tests the user's condition, for example, health condition [i.e. based on a health event detected as a health issue of a delivery recipient]. If the user's medical condition is back to normal, the process is terminated. If the user's medical condition is not back to normal, the system determines whether a revised medication schedule or prescription exists [i.e. b based on a health event]. If not, then the process ends. If yes, then the revised medication schedule is applied and the prescription is updated [i.e. modifying the subscription order]. Next, a daily prescription list is updated” [0076] and “ a display can be provided to the user for signing up for regular delivery of medication entered by the user or the healthcare provider. In some cases, the user can be provided with an option to subscribe for ongoing delivery [i.e. the subscription order]” [0084]). This known technique is applicable to the mobile device of Delaney as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a subscription for ongoing delivery.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of modifying the subscription order based on a health event including at least one of a detected as a health issue of a delivery recipient, as taught by Madjd, to the teachings of Delaney would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar mobile devices. Further, adding the modification of modifying the subscription order based on a health event including at least one of a detected as a health issue of a delivery recipient, as taught by Madjd, into the mobile device of Delaney would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved mobile device that would monitor treatment, medication, and health status of users to facilitate health management (Madjd, [0002]).
Regarding claim 16, Delaney discloses the server device of claim 11. Delaney further discloses:
-wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the server device to autonomously modify the subscription order based on the event (Delaney, see at least: “the controller 160 can be a server or be embedded in a server [i.e. wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the server device to] (e.g., consider a cloud-based server, etc.)” [0034] and “consider tortilla chips which may be on a digital subscription model list. As an example, transaction data of an individual as indicated via a mobile device pay technology, a debit card or credit card technology, etc., may be access to determine whether the individual has acted in a manner that impacts a subscription model. For example, an individual may have a subscription model for delivery of tortilla chips and transaction data may indicate that the individual purchased tortilla chips (e.g., or a substitute such as potato chips) [i.e. modify the subscription order based on the event]. In such an example, the transaction data may be accessed and utilized in conjunction with a time-dependent model to determine whether control data is to be adjusted” [0047] and “the system 100 can provide for automatic adjustment [i.e. autonomously modify the subscription order] of control data such that control data can differ from that of a base-state, which may be an initial state, for example, based on an individual's estimated needs/usage of goods” [0051]).
Delaney does not explicitly disclose modifying the subscription order based on a health event detected as a health issue of a delivery recipient.
Madjd, however, teaches a subscription for ongoing delivery (i.e. [0084]), including the known technique of modifying the subscription order based on a health event detected as a health issue of a delivery recipient (Madjd, see at least: “a method for updating a health management system. In a first step, an automated action plan is activated. In a second step, a user interacts with the action plan. In a third step, the automated action plan tests the user's condition, for example, health condition [i.e. based on a health event detected as a health issue of a delivery recipient]. If the user's medical condition is back to normal, the process is terminated. If the user's medical condition is not back to normal, the system determines whether a revised medication schedule or prescription exists [i.e. based on a health event]. If not, then the process ends. If yes, then the revised medication schedule is applied and the prescription is updated [i.e. modifying the subscription order]. Next, a daily prescription list is updated” [0076] and “ a display can be provided to the user for signing up for regular delivery of medication entered by the user or the healthcare provider. In some cases, the user can be provided with an option to subscribe for ongoing delivery [i.e. the subscription order]” [0084]). This known technique is applicable to the server device of Delaney as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a subscription for ongoing delivery.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of modifying the subscription order based on a health event detected as a health issue of a delivery recipient, as taught by Madjd, to the teachings of Delaney would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar server devices. Further, adding the modification of modifying the subscription order based on a health event detected as a health issue of a delivery recipient, as taught by Madjd, into the server device of Delaney would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved server device that would monitor treatment, medication, and health status of users to facilitate health management (Madjd, [0002]).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney in view of Medina et al. (US 11,836,697 B1), hereinafter Medina.
Regarding claim 7, Delaney discloses the mobile device of claim 1. Delaney further discloses:
-wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to reduce the quantity of the item in the subscription order based on the event (Delaney, see at least: “one or more instances of a controller 960 can exist, which may be implemented, for example, via the mobile device 956 (e.g., via an app, etc.) [i.e. wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to], via the hub 910 (e.g., via an application, etc.), and/or via a remote network resource or resources” [0084] and “a system can include instructions to control issuance of an instruction based at least in part on a comparison where the instruction can be issued based at least in part on an occupancy schedule for a site. For example, where a site is unoccupied due to a calendared vacation [i.e. based on the event] (e.g., as may be indicated in data generated in a calendar app of a mobile device, etc.), a controller may issue an instruction that halts and/or reschedules a packaging process [i.e. reduce the quantity of the item in the subscription order based on the event] to occur at a later time (e.g., later than a predetermined time)” [0115] and “an adjustment may include a frequency adjustment where an interval between deliveries is shortened or lengthened and/or where an amount of goods per package is adjusted. As to the latter, consider control data as including amount of goods per package data. In such an example, control data can be adjusted without changing time but rather changing an amount of goods at each time (e.g., to be more or lesser) [i.e. to reduce the quantity of the item in the subscription order]” [0082]).
Delaney does not explicitly disclose reducing the quantity of the item in the subscription order based on the event including an ability of payment for the subscription order.
Medina, however, teaches recurring payments (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of reducing the quantity of the item in the subscription order based on the event including an ability of payment for the subscription order (Medina, see at least: “the usage threshold may vary based on one or more characteristics of the consumer, such as an age, an amount of debt held by the consumer, an amount of savings held by the consumer (e.g., cash savings or net worth), and/or a household income for the consumer. The one or more characteristics may be obtained via a registration process by the consumer and/or via the bank services 16. For example, the usage threshold may be set to a lower usage (e.g., of hours or orders) for a first consumer with a first amount of debt and/or a first amount of savings, and the usage threshold may be set to a higher usage (e.g., higher than the lower usage) for a second consumer with a second amount of debt that is greater than the first amount of debt and/or a second amount of savings that is less than the first amount of savings. In this way, the payment management system 10 may encourage consumers with greater debt and/or less savings [i.e. based on the event including an ability of payment for the subscription order] to cancel a recurring payment [i.e. reduce the quantity of the item in the subscription order] unless their use of the service is substantial (e.g., average or above average)” Col. 7 Ln. 36-54 Examiner notes that cancelling the order reduces the quantity to zero). This known technique is applicable to the mobile device of Delaney as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to recurring payments.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of reducing the quantity of the item in the subscription order based on the event including an ability of payment for the subscription order, as taught by Medina, to the teachings of Delaney would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar mobile devices. Further, adding the modification of reducing the quantity of the item in the subscription order based on the event including an ability of payment for the subscription order, as taught by Medina, into the mobile device of Delaney would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved mobile device that would provide users with directions to increase a usage value of a subscription or to facilitate cancellation of the service (Medina, abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Delaney discloses the server device of claim 11. Delaney further discloses:
-wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the server device to reduce the quantity of the item in the subscription order based on the event (Delaney, see at least: “the controller 160 can be a server or be embedded in a server [i.e. wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the server device to] (e.g., consider a cloud-based server, etc.)” [0034] and “a system can include instructions to control issuance of an instruction based at least in part on a comparison where the instruction can be issued based at least in part on an occupancy schedule for a site. For example, where a site is unoccupied due to a calendared vacation [i.e. based on the event] (e.g., as may be indicated in data generated in a calendar app of a mobile device, etc.), a controller may issue an instruction that halts and/or reschedules a packaging process [i.e. reduce the quantity of the item in the subscription order based on the event] to occur at a later time (e.g., later than a predetermined time)” [0115] and “an adjustment may include a frequency adjustment where an interval between deliveries is shortened or lengthened and/or where an amount of goods per package is adjusted. As to the latter, consider control data as including amount of goods per package data. In such an example, control data can be adjusted without changing time but rather changing an amount of goods at each time (e.g., to be more or lesser) [i.e. to reduce the quantity of the item in the subscription order]” [0082]).
Delaney does not explicitly disclose reducing the quantity of the item in the subscription order based on the event including an ability of payment for the subscription order.
Medina, however, teaches recurring payments (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of reducing the quantity of the item in the subscription order based on the event including an ability of payment for the subscription order (Medina, see at least: “the usage threshold may vary based on one or more characteristics of the consumer, such as an age, an amount of debt held by the consumer, an amount of savings held by the consumer (e.g., cash savings or net worth), and/or a household income for the consumer. The one or more characteristics may be obtained via a registration process by the consumer and/or via the bank services 16. For example, the usage threshold may be set to a lower usage (e.g., of hours or orders) for a first consumer with a first amount of debt and/or a first amount of savings, and the usage threshold may be set to a higher usage (e.g., higher than the lower usage) for a second consumer with a second amount of debt that is greater than the first amount of debt and/or a second amount of savings that is less than the first amount of savings. In this way, the payment management system 10 may encourage consumers with greater debt and/or less savings [i.e. based on the event including an ability of payment for the subscription order] to cancel a recurring payment [i.e. reduce the quantity of the item in the subscription order] unless their use of the service is substantial (e.g., average or above average)” Col. 7 Ln. 36-54 and “The payment management system 10 may be configured to manage recurring payments for a wide variety of services, such as cable or streaming television services, mobile phone services, gym memberships, subscription-based shopping or food delivery services, or the like” Col. 5 Ln. 6-10; Examiner notes that cancelling the order reduces the quantity to zero). This known technique is applicable to the server device of Delaney as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to recurring payments.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of reducing the quantity of the item in the subscription order based on the event including an ability of payment for the subscription order, as taught by Medina, to the teachings of Delaney would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar server devices. Further, adding the modification of reducing the quantity of the item in the subscription order based on the event including an ability of payment for the subscription order, as taught by Medina, into the server device of Delaney would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved server device that would provide users with directions to increase a usage value of a subscription or to facilitate cancellation of the service (Medina, abstract).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney in view of Xu et al. (US 11,188,970 B1), hereinafter Xu.
Regarding claim 8, Delaney discloses the mobile device of claim 1. Delaney further discloses:
-wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to permit transmission of the request to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order (Delaney, see at least: “one or more instances of a controller 960 can exist, which may be implemented, for example, via the mobile device 956 (e.g., via an app, etc.) [i.e. wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to], via the hub 910 (e.g., via an application, etc.), and/or via a remote network resource or resources” [0084] and “an individual may have a subscription model for delivery of tortilla chips and transaction data may indicate that the individual purchased tortilla chips (e.g., or a substitute such as potato chips). In such an example, the transaction data may be accessed and utilized in conjunction with a time-dependent model to determine whether control data is to be adjusted. As an example, a system can include generating a message and communicating the message to a user, optionally via a graphical user interface (GUI). In such an example, the message may say, “you just bought chips, adjust subscription model for chips?” Where a user interacts with the GUI to provide an answer, a system can adjust (e.g., “yes”) [i.e. permit transmission of the request to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order] or not adjust (“no”) the subscription model. Where the system has access to a calendar with, for example, an entry that states “house warming party”, the system may determine that the user does not want to adjust the subscription model and thereby forego messaging the user” [0047]).
Delaney does not explicitly disclose permitting transmission of the request to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on a determination that the transmission occurs prior to a cutoff time for modifying orders on the fulfillment service.
Xu, however, teaches a recurring order (i.e. Col. 2 Ln. 33-34), including the known technique of permit transmission of the request to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on a determination that the transmission occurs prior to a cutoff time for modifying orders on the fulfillment service (Xu, see at least: “responsive to receiving an acceptance of the request for services or not receiving a denial [i.e. permit transmission of the request to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order] of the request for services within a threshold period of time [i.e. based on a determination that the transmission occurs prior to a cutoff time for modifying orders on the fulfillment service], the service computing device may send a delivery assistant instruction to a delivery assistant computing device” Col. 29 Ln. 15-19 and “the customer may submit a recurring drop-off meal order [i.e. in the subscription order] for 27 people on Fridays, to be delivered at 11 am” Col. 2 Ln. 33-34). This known technique is applicable to the mobile device of Delaney as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a recurring order.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of permit transmission of the request to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on a determination that the transmission occurs prior to a cutoff time for modifying orders on the fulfillment service, as taught by Xu, to the teachings of Delaney would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar mobile devices. Further, adding the modification of permit transmission of the request to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on a determination that the transmission occurs prior to a cutoff time for modifying orders on the fulfillment service, as taught by Xu, into the mobile device of Delaney would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved mobile device that would ensure quality control (Xu, Col. 2 Ln. 10-11).
Regarding claim 10, Delaney discloses the mobile device of claim 1. Delaney further discloses:
-wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to revert the subscription order to include default items and a respective default quantity of the default items based on a determination that the event no longer affects the subscription order (Delaney, see at least: “one or more instances of a controller 960 can exist, which may be implemented, for example, via the mobile device 956 (e.g., via an app, etc.) [i.e. wherein the smart order controller is configured to cause the mobile device to], via the hub 910 (e.g., via an application, etc.), and/or via a remote network resource or resources” [0084] and “consider tortilla chips which may be on a digital subscription model list. As an example, transaction data of an individual as indicated via a mobile device pay technology, a debit card or credit card technology, etc., may be access to determine whether the individual has acted in a manner that impacts a subscription model. For example, an individual may have a subscription model for delivery of tortilla chips and transaction data may indicate that the individual purchased tortilla chips (e.g., or a substitute such as potato chips). In such an example, the transaction data may be accessed and utilized in conjunction with a time-dependent model to determine whether control data is to be adjusted. As an example, a system can include generating a message and communicating the message to a user, optionally via a graphical user interface (GUI). In such an example, the message may say, “you just bought chips, adjust subscription model for chips?” Where a user interacts with the GUI to provide an answer, a system can adjust (e.g., “yes”) or not adjust (“no”) the subscription model. Where the system has access to a calendar with, for example, an entry that states “house warming party”, the system may determine that the user does not want to adjust the subscription model and thereby forego messaging the user [i.e. revert the subscription order to include default items and a respective default quantity of the default items based on a determination that the event no longer affects the subscription order]” [0047]).
Delaney does not explicitly disclose a determination that sufficient time remains to modify the subscription order.
Xu, however, teaches a recurring order (i.e. Col. 2 Ln. 33-34), including the known technique of a determination that sufficient time remains to modify the subscription order (Xu, see at least: “responsive to receiving an acceptance of the request for services or not receiving a denial of the request for services within a threshold period of time [i.e. based on a determination that that sufficient time remains to modify the subscription order], the service computing device may send a delivery assistant instruction to a delivery assistant computing device” Col. 29 Ln. 15-19 and “the customer may submit a recurring drop-off meal order for 27 people on Fridays [i.e. the subscription order], to be delivered at 11 am” Col. 2 Ln. 33-34). This known technique is applicable to the mobile device of Delaney as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a recurring order.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of a determination that sufficient time remains to modify the subscription order, as taught by Xu, to the teachings of Delaney would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar mobile devices. Further, adding the modification of a determination that sufficient time remains to modify the subscription order, as taught by Xu, into the mobile device of Delaney would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved mobile device that would ensure quality control (Xu, Col. 2 Ln. 10-11).
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that Amendments are provided herein to clarify that the smart order controller autonomously determines events affecting subscription orders and transmits modification requests to fulfillment services, which is a technical solution for managing subscription deliveries, rather than merely organizing human activity on generic computing hardware. Further, the amendments provide specific technical implementation details showing how the system automatically detects and responds to events. The amended claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea and the smart order controller provides a specific technical solution for preventing waste of perishable items that goes beyond conventional subscription management. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the §101 rejection be withdrawn. Further, Applicant submits that claims 1-20 as presently recited satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §101 (Remarks, page 7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements such as the smart order controller and a request being autonomous fails to reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. Managing subscription deliveries and preventing waste of perishable items are not a technical solutions and subscription management is not a technical field. The recited additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Accordingly, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant argues that Delaney does not disclose the subject matter of independent claim 1 as amended, in particular the features to "determine an event that affects a quantity of an item included in the subscription order, the event determined as a travel-related event of a recipient of the subscription order based on one or more travel-related data" and "transmit, to the fulfillment service, an autonomous request without user input to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on the determination of the event." The Office cites Delaney paragraph [0047] to reject "determine an event that affects a quantity of an item included in the subscription order" as recited in claim 1. However, Delaney does not disclose to determine an event "as a travel-related event of a recipient of the subscription order based on one or more travel-related data" as recited in amended claim 1. Delaney describes a server-based system that controls packaging and communicates a message to a user (a user device) for user interaction through a GUI to adjust the subscription model. Accordingly, Delaney as cited by the Office does not support a §102 rejection of independent claim 1 as amended for at least the reasons described above, and Applicant requests that the rejection be withdrawn (Remarks, pages 8-9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Delaney discloses that calendar data is used to determine that a site will be unoccupied due to an upcoming vacation [i.e. the event determined as a travel-related event of a recipient of the subscription order based on one or more travel-related data], and in response to this determination, the controller issues an instruction that modifies the subscription, as well as, that the subscription models can be automatically adjusted based on an individual's estimated needs/usage of goods [i.e. transmit, to the fulfillment service, an autonomous request without user input to modify the quantity] (see Delaney, [0115], [0044] and [0051]). Accordingly, Delaney discloses these amended limitations.
Applicant further argues that dependent claims 2-10 are allowable as depending from claim 1, and the § 102 rejection should be withdrawn (Remarks, page 9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the response to arguments above, claim 1 is not allowable. Accordingly, dependent claims 2-10 are not allowable.
Applicant further argues that claim 6 recites to "autonomously modify, based on mobile device data and without user input, the subscription order based on a health event detected as a health issue of a delivery recipient," and there is no indication in Madjd to "autonomously modify, based on mobile device data and without user input, the subscription order based on a health event detected as a health issue of a delivery recipient" as recited in claim 6. Further, the combination of Delaney and Madjd fails to teach autonomously modifying a subscription order without user input for items based on a detected health issue of a delivery recipient because the health management system of Madjd relates to medication prescriptions and a revised medication plan based on user interaction and input. There is no indication in Madjd to autonomously modify a subscription order based on mobile device data (e.g., data sources on the mobile device). Accordingly, the cited references do not support the § 102 / § 103 rejections, which should be withdrawn (Remarks, page 9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Delaney discloses that the controller issues an instruction that modifies the subscription in response to a determination from calendar data received from a calendar app of the mobile device [i.e. based on mobile device data], as well as, that the subscription models can be automatically adjusted based on an individual's estimated needs/usage of goods [i.e. autonomously modify, based on mobile device data and without user input the subscription order based on an event] (see Delaney, [0115] and [0051]). Madjd modifies the event of Delaney to be a health event detected as a health issue of a delivery recipient. Specifically, Madjd teaches testing a health condition of a user and revising a medication subscription schedule [i.e. modifying the subscription order] based on the presence of the health condition [i.e. based on a health event detected as a health issue of a delivery recipient] (see Madjd, [0084]). Accordingly, the cited references teach this amended claim.
Applicant further argues that claim 7 recites to "reduce the quantity of the item in the subscription order based on the event including an ability of payment for the subscription order." The Office recognizes that Delaney does not disclose modifying the subscription order based on the event including an ability of payment for the subscription order. The Office cites Medina (col.7, ln 36-54) for this recited feature of dependent claim 7. However, Medina only describes to cancel recurring payments based on usage thresholds rather than modifying item quantities based on payment ability. There is no indication in Medina to "reduce the quantity of the item in the subscription order based on the event including an ability of payment for the subscription order" as recited in claim 7. Accordingly, the cited references do not support the § 102 / § 103 rejections, which should be withdrawn (Remarks, page 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Medina teaches cancelling a recurring payment, such as for a food delivery service [i.e. reduce the quantity of the item in the subscription order], based on a customer having less than a threshold of savings [i.e. based on the event including an ability of payment for the subscription order] (see Medina, Col. 7 Ln. 36-54 and Col. 5 Ln. 6-10). Cancelling the payment reduces the amount of food items in the recurring delivery to zero. Accordingly, the cited references teach this amended claim.
Applicant further argues that claim 8 recites to "permit transmission of the request to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on a determination that the transmission occurs prior to a cutoff time for modifying orders on the fulfillment service." The Office recognizes that Delaney does not disclose permitting transmission of the request to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order based on a determination that the transmission occurs prior to a cutoff time for modifying orders on the fulfillment service. The Office cites Xu (col.2, ln 33,34) for this recited feature of dependent claim 8. However, Xu only describes a recurring food drop-off order. There is no indication in Xu of a cutoff time for modifying a subscription order at a fulfillment service. Accordingly, the cited references do not support the §102 / §103 rejections, which should be withdrawn (Remarks, page 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Xu teaches that, responsive to not receiving a denial of a request for a delivery of a recurring meal order within a threshold period of time, submitting the delivery instruction (see Xu, Col. 29 Ln. 15-19 and Col. 2 Ln. 33-34). If a denial [i.e. the request to modify the quantity of the item included in the subscription order] is received within the threshold period of time [i.e. permit transmission of the request to modify based on a determination that the transmission occurs prior to a cutoff time for modifying orders on the fulfillment service], the recurring delivery is not submitted and the item quantity is modified to zero. Accordingly, the cited references teach this amended claim.
Applicant further argues that independent claims 11 and 18 are amended and recite features that are consistent (although not identical) to the features recited in claim 1. As discussed above in response to the rejection of claim 1, Delaney does not disclose the subject matter of independent claims 11 and 18 as amended. Accordingly, Delaney as cited by the Office does not support a § 102 rejection of independent claims 11 and 18, and Applicant requests that the rejection be withdrawn (Remarks, page 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the response to arguments above, claim 1 is disclosed by the cited art. Accordingly, claims 11 and 18 are disclosed by the cited art.
Applicant further argues that dependent claims 12-17, as well as 19 and 20, are allowable as depending from respective independent claims 11 and 18, and the §102 / §103 rejections should be withdrawn. To the extent that dependent claims 6-8, 10, 16, and 17 are further rejected, Madjd, Medina, and/or Xu is not seen to add anything of significance to the rejection of independent claims 11 and 18, and the §103 rejections should be withdrawn (Remarks, pages 10-11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the response to arguments above, the independent claims are disclosed by the cited art and, accordingly, 12-17, as well as 19 and 20 are rejected. Additionally, dependent claims 6-8, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected by the cited art, as detailed in the response to the arguments above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Alvo et al. (US 2018/0315111 A1) teaches an automated home inventory replenishment network.
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 ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689