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 .
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 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 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; 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 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 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”), in view of Zaragoza et al., US PG Pub 2014/0249966 A1 (hereafter “Zaragoza”).
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 of a shopping list associated with a grocery store (¶¶0020-0021, 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. 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). 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 or the one or more specific inventory (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 a network, an order to the grocery store, the order comprising the one or more 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.
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.
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