DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 09 February 2026.
Claims 21-23, 25-28, 32, 33, 36, 38, and 39 have been amended. Claims 29 and 31 have been canceled. Claims 43 and 44 have been added.
Claims 21-28, 30, 32, 33, and 36-44 are currently pending.
Claims 21-28, 30, 32, 33, and 36-44 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Applicant argues that the obviousness-type double patenting rejections “are moot in light of the amendments.” Remarks at 11. Examiner agrees and the remaining double patenting rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “at least the amended features of amended claim 21 that are shown in bold font above are additional elements that go beyond the alleged abstract idea, and at least these additional elements amount to more than “mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.” Remarks at 13. The bolded steps all relate to the performance of a step by a “service computing device.” The steps, as indicated in the rejection below, are all abstract in nature, falling into the mental processes grouping and/or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. There is no indication in the specification that the recited “service computing device” is anything other than generic in nature. Thus, the claims, which recite that the abstract steps are performed by the generic hardware, here merely reciting that the judicial exception is carried out by generic computer components. Applicant does not provide any further argument as to how the recited “service computing device” goes beyond mere implementation of the judicial exception. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in claim 21 “the combination of additional elements meaningfully limits the alleged abstract idea.” Remarks at 13. Claim 21 does not recite a combination of additional elements as only one additional element is present, namely the “service computing device.” Applicant does not expand on what meaningful limitations are present. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “respective items associated with both transactions […] can be delivered to a destination in the same trip, thereby conserving resources […]. Applicant respectfully submits that this amounts to a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome.” Remarks at 13-14. As applicant note, this analysis is discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) which also indicates that “[i]t is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” In the present claims, it is the abstract steps, not the additional elements, that provide the improvement. The recited “service computing device” is merely carrying out the judicial exception, not providing an improvement. The improvement comes from steps that fall into at least one abstract idea grouping. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “new claim 43 is directed to applying machine learning to train a model and using the model to analyze transaction data for determining that the first merchant and the second merchant are complementary. Therefore, claim 43 recites additional elements that go beyond the alleged abstract idea […].” Remarks at 10. Claim 43 does not recite any additional elements beyond those recited in claim 21. For example, the model and the training of a model are considered abstract. See abstract idea example 47 (Anomaly Detection), claim 2, found ineligible, which includes steps of “training, by the computer, the ANN [artificial neural network] based on the input data and a selected training algorithm to generate a trained ANN, wherein the selected training algorithm includes a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm” and “analyzing the one or more detected anomalies using the trained ANN to generate anomaly data.” Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
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 21-28, 30, 32, 33, and 36-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 21-28, 30, 43, and 44 recite a method which is considered a process. Claims 32, 33, 36, and 37 recite a system which is considered a machine or manufacture. Claims 38-42 recite a non-transitory computer-readable media which is considered a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A-Prong One
(Claims 21, 32, and 38) The “determining, based at least in part on a distance between a location of the first merchant and a location of the second merchant of the plurality of merchants determined from the location data, that the first merchant and the second merchant are complementary” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by the service computing device” language in claim 21 or the “cause the one or more processors to perform acts” language in claims 32 and 38, the claim encompasses a user manually determining, based on given information, that merchants are complementary. Claims 21, 32, and 38 fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas and thus recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 21, 32, and 38) The “determining, based at least in part on determining that the first merchant and the second merchant are complementary, to offer a discounted delivery fee to the customer for conducting the first transaction with the first merchant and a second transaction with the second merchant” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by a service computing device” language in claim 21 or the “cause the one or more processors to perform acts” language in claims 32 and 38, the claim encompasses a user manually determining, based on known information, to offer a discount to the customer. Claims 21, 32, and 38 fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas and thus recite an abstract idea.
The claims recite the concept of using known information to determine a discount to provide to a customer (see “storing, in a data store, a plurality of merchant profiles, the plurality of merchant profiles comprising location data associated with a plurality of merchants; receiving from a customer or a point-of-sale (POS) device of a first merchant of the plurality of merchants, transaction data associated with a first transaction between the customer and the first merchant, wherein the first transaction corresponds to an order for delivery; determining, based at least in part on a distance between a location of the first merchant and a location of the second merchant of the plurality of merchants determined from the location data, that the first merchant and the second merchant are complementary; determining, based at least in part on determining that the first merchant and the second merchant are complementary, to offer a discounted delivery fee to the customer for conducting the first transaction with the first merchant and a second transaction with the second merchant; causing presentation of an indication of the discounted delivery fee to the customer on a display associated with the customer device; responsive to causing presentation of the indication of the discounted delivery fee, receiving, from the customer device, a request to conduct the second transaction with the second merchant; and processing at least one of a payment for the first transaction or a payment for the second transaction in accordance with the discounted delivery fee” in claim 32, for example.). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including commercial interactions and sales activities. Thus, claims 21-40 recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 22-30, 33, 36, 37, and 39-44 have been analyzed and they further limit the abstract idea recited in the independent claims but do not take the claims out of the identified abstract idea grouping(s). Thus, the dependent claims recite an abstract idea.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic device, system, or media does not take the claim limitations out of the identified abstract idea grouping(s). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a service computing device (claims 21-30, 43, and 44), a system comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions (claims 32, 33, 36, and 37), or one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors (claims 38-42) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The computing device, system, or non-transitory computer-readable media does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622