DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment dated April 14, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, and 14 have been amended.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-15, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-15 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites: A computer-implemented method, comprising: providing in an application on a user device, by a processor, a text entry field for freeform text entry, by a user via a text input mechanism provided on the user device, of a shopping list associated with a grocery store; receiving, by the processor, a submission of text entered in the text entry field, the text corresponding to a one or more items of the shopping list, and a respective quantity for each of the one or more items; processing, by the processor, the text by interfacing, over a network, with an order fulfillment system of the grocery store so that real-time inventory of the grocery store is used to identify one or more available inventory items that correspond to the respective one or more items of the shopping list; selecting one of more specific inventory items from the one or more available inventory items based on weighted or unweighted criteria comprising user purchase history, user preferences, and current inventory of the grocery store; and providing, in the application on the user device, by the processor, a shopping cart comprising the one or more specific inventory items, respective quantities for each or the one or more specific inventory items, and respective prices for each or the one or more specific inventory items, wherein each of the one or more specific inventory items replaces the respective one or more items of the shopping list.
The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to provide quantities and prices of items (Specification ¶0008). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including a user device, a text input mechanism, a network, and a processor.
These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is 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 the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, 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 other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) 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.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does 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.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 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. MPEP 2106.05.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-5 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 2-5 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 2-5 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2-5 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 2-5 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
Claims 6-15 are parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claims 1-5, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 1-15 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palanikumar et al., US PG Pub 2017/0185243 (hereafter “Palanikumar”), previously cited, in view of Zaragoza et al., US PG Pub 2014/0249966 A1 (hereafter “Zaragoza”), previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Palanikumar teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
providing in an application on a user device, by a processor, a text entry field for freeform text entry, by a user via a text input mechanism provided on the user device, of a shopping list associated with a grocery store (¶¶0020-0021, 0025, 0028-0030, and 0037-0038);
receiving, by the processor, a submission of text entered in the text entry field, the text corresponding to a one or more items of the shopping list (¶¶0022-0023 and 0030-0035),
processing, by the processor, the text to identify one or more specific inventory items in the grocery store that correspond to the respective one or more items of the shopping list (¶¶0023-0025 and 0033-0034); and
providing, in the application on the user device, by the processor, a shopping cart comprising the one or more specific inventory items, and respective prices for each or the one or more specific inventory items, wherein each of the one or more inventory items replaces the respective one or more items of the shopping list (¶¶0021-0023 and 0035-0039).
Palanikumar does not teach a respective quantity for each of the one or more items, available grocery store inventory, or selecting based on criteria. Zaragoza teaches a method for recipe, grocery, and food services including the known technique for a respective quantity for each of the one or more items (¶¶0057-0073), by interfacing, over a network, with an order fulfillment system of the grocery store so that real-time inventory of the grocery store is used to identify one or more available inventory items (¶¶0018, 0052, and 0060-0074), and selecting one of more specific inventory items from the one or more available inventory items based on weighted or unweighted criteria comprising user purchase history, user preferences, and current inventory of the grocery store (¶¶0042-0049 and 0070-0074). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Palanikumar, to include quantities as taught by Zaragoza, in order to “accommodate user preferences relating to brands, quantities, quality, availability, payment methods, delivery methods, delivery times, and the like,” as suggested by Zaragoza (¶0017).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Zaragoza, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Palanikumar in view of Zaragoza teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the shopping cart includes a total price comprising a sum of the respective prices for each of the one or more specific inventory items (Palanikumar ¶0035).
Regarding claim 3, Palanikumar in view of Zaragoza teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the shopping cart includes a user interface element for submission of an order based on the shopping cart (Palanikumar ¶¶0032-0035).
Regarding claim 4, Palanikumar in view of Zaragoza teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3, comprising: receiving, by the processor, a selection of the user interface element for submission of an order based on the shopping cart (Palanikumar ¶¶0034-0035); and submitting, via the network and to the order fulfillment system, an order to the grocery store, the order comprising the one or more specific inventory items (Palanikumar ¶¶0036-0037).
Regarding claim 5, Palanikumar in view of Zaragoza teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising providing, in the application on the user device, by a processor, a user interface element indicating that the one or more items of the shopping list were added to the shopping cart (Palanikumar ¶¶0035-0039).
Regarding claims 6-15, all of the limitations in claims 6-15 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 1-5, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments regarding the §101 rejection (Remarks pp. 6-10), the examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that the abstract idea recited in the claims is integrated into a practical application because the text processed by the processor is interfaced with an order fulfillment system to identify available inventory items. Identifying inventory items is directed to the abstract idea, and text processed by a processor and interfaced over a network is the mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer without significantly more. Processors are a generic computer component, a user interface has not been recited, and any specific components which might comprise the order fulfillment system have also not been recited. Therefore, these additional elements are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as described in the MPEP and analyzed by the rejection. Applicant additionally argues that selecting a specific inventory item using criteria that includes current inventory, user purchase history, and user preferences integrates the abstract idea into a practical application but has not provided any explanation as to why or how. These limitations are clearly directed to the abstract idea itself, and there are no additional elements recited in these limitations.
Applicant argues that the claims represent a technical solution to the technical problem of "streamlined pickup of groceries." However, the claims recite a series of abstract steps for identifying and selecting items and providing prices. It is not clear which claim limitation, if any, improves the efficiency of a computer or improves the streamlined pickup of groceries. A "non-streamlined" pickup of groceries also requires providing a shopping list, receiving a quantity of items, identifying the items, selecting the items, and providing the price in a shopping cart. Whatever improvement may or may not be described in the specification has not been recited in the claims.
In response to applicant's arguments regarding the prior art (Remarks pp. 10-13), the examiner disagrees. Applicant alleges that Palanikumar does not teach the amended limitations for a text input mechanism. However, Palanikumar teaches a keyboard as cited. Additionally, applicant is aware that applicant did not invent text input, and arguments to the contrary unnecessarily prolong prosecution. For example, the word processor that applicant's representative used to prepare the response is a text entry field for freeform text entry by a user via a text input mechanism provided on the user device and predates applicant's disclosure. Applicant further argues that the previously cited art does not teach the two amended limitations. However, the amended limitations are taught by Zaragoza as cited above.
Applicant argues that Palanikumar does not teach replacing the items on the shopping list in a shopping cart. As cited, Palanikumar teaches "the pasting of the list of selected items will generate a live change event (operation 520) that may be detected by, for example, the live change event detection module 212. In response to the detection of the live change event, the pasted list of selected items is optionally converted into a plurality of segmented items by, for example, converting the list of selected items into an array (operation 524). The segmented list (e.g., an array of items) is then used to trigger various actions on the page (operation 528). In one example, the actions are based on the items in the array. For example, if the list of selected items is a list of grocery items to be deposited into an electronic shopping cart, the action can be the submission of the items to an electronic commerce web site via an interface for the electronic commerce web site." Palanikumar teaches taking the shopping list provided by the user, pasting the list to generate a live change event which converts the list into a segmented list which triggers actions to place the specific items into the shopping cart. Therefore, Palanikumar teaches the limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Anderson, US PG Pub 2020/0005378 A1, teaches a system, device, and mobile application to facilitate grocery shopping at a grocery store.
Jitkoff et al., US PG Pub 2012/0136756 A1, teaches on-demand auto-fill.
Non-patent literature El Mahboul, Abdelaziz teaches a smart shopping cart system innovation for the Grocery Industry.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights