DETAILED ACTION
The following is a final office action in response to the amendment filed April 7, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's 101 arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s Argument that the Office Improperly Summarized the Claims
Applicant contends that the Office “has not specifically addressed the subject matter of each claim” and instead improperly summarized the claim limitations. This argument is not persuasive.
The Office Action explicitly identified the limitations of claim 1, including: (i) implementing a fulfillment transaction, (ii) presenting transaction context options, (iii) receiving user input specifying context values, (iv) storing a transaction record including the context values, and (v) presenting a representation of the transaction record. These limitations were considered under their broadest reasonable interpretation and collectively determined to recite managing fulfillment transactions and associated recordkeeping, which falls within the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial interactions and business practices), as set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Applicant has not identified any specific limitation that was overlooked or mischaracterized, nor explained how any particular limitation meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Merely restating the claim language does not demonstrate that the Office’s characterization is in error. The Office is not required to reproduce the claims verbatim, but rather to reasonably identify the concept to which the claims are directed, which has been done here.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Integration into a Practical Application
Applicant does not present arguments addressing how the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
As previously explained, the additional elements—namely, a “client device,” “processor,” and “modules”—are generic computer components performing routine functions such as receiving input, processing data, storing information, and presenting results. The claim does not recite any technological improvement to computer functionality, any particular machine integral to the claim, or any transformation of an article. Nor does it apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a computer environment.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
Applicant also does not present arguments directed to Step 2B.
The additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities implemented on generic computer components. The functions of presenting options, receiving user input, storing transaction data, and displaying results are fundamental computer operations and do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding Dependent Claims
Applicant argues that the Office failed to provide a “complete examination” of the dependent claims. This argument is not persuasive.
The dependent claims were considered and determined to recite additional limitations that further specify or refine the abstract idea without adding any technological improvement or other element that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Where dependent claims do not add meaningful limitations beyond those of the independent claim, they may be addressed together. See MPEP § 2106.
Applicant has not identified any specific dependent claim limitation that would alter the eligibility analysis.
Applicant's prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Isaacson does not disclose receive user input to select at least one context option and to provide one or more context values for the at least one context option. Isaacson, though does indeed teach receive user input to select at least one context option and to provide one or more context values for the at least one context option (Isaacson: Figure 5B - user can select option (amount) and value (drop down)). Isaacson thereby teaches the claimed limitation.
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 (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category (MPEP § 2106)
The claims are directed to a system and method.
Conclusion: The claims are directed to a statutory category: a machine and a process as defined under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception – Abstract Idea (MPEP § 2106.04)
The claim recites limitations directed to:
Implementing a fulfillment transaction;
Presenting transaction context options to a user;
Receiving user selections and context values;
Storing a transaction record including those context values; and
Presenting a representation of the stored record.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe managing commercial or legal interactions and organizing human activity (fulfillment transactions and recordkeeping).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application (MPEP § 2106.04(d))
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea are:
“a client device comprising at least one processor”
“one or more modules executable by the at least one processor.”
These elements merely invoke generic computer components performing their basic functions of processing, receiving input, storing data, and displaying information. The claim does not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to another technology or technical field. Nor does it integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept (MPEP § 2106.05)
The claim elements, individually and in combination, amount to no more than generic computer components configured to carry out the abstract idea of managing fulfillment transactions. Merely performing generic computer functions (presenting options, receiving input, storing data, and displaying a record) does not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding Claims 12 and 19
Independent claims 12 and 19 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20 merely set forth further embellishments to the abstract idea, and therefore do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isaacson et al (US 2022/0374865 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 19, Isaacson discloses A client device comprising: at least one processor; and one or more modules executable by the at least one processor to:
implement a fulfillment transaction via a fulfillment application; present transaction context options that are each selectable to enable user input to specify transaction context for the fulfillment transaction; receive user input to select at least one context option and to provide one or more context values for the at least one context option (Isaacson: Figure 5B);
cause a transaction record for the fulfillment transaction to be stored including the one or more context values for the at least one context option (Isaacson: Figure 1 - storage device);
present a representation of the transaction record including the one or more context values for the at least one context option (Isaacson: Figure 7).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Isaacson discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1 and 12. Isaacson further discloses wherein the fulfillment transaction comprises a product purchase via the fulfillment application (Isaacson: paragraph [0197] - In another embodiment, a method of extending a gift offering including at least one product from a giver to a recipient for selection by the recipient using one-click purchasing at an on-line shopping environment is disclosed).
Regarding claim 3, Isaacson discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Isaacson further discloses wherein the context options comprise one or more of a transaction purpose option, a recipient option, or a transaction notes option (Isaacson: Figure 5B, Figure 17A).
Regarding claim 4, Isaacson discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Isaacson further discloses wherein the at least one context option comprises a purpose option, and wherein the one or more modules are executable by the at least one processor to present a purpose menu that includes multiple different selectable purpose options describing different selectable purposes for the fulfillment transaction, wherein the user input to provide the one or more context values comprises a user selection of at least one of the purpose options (Isaacson: Figure 5B, paragraph [0319] - Then, the recipient can later query the system, such as by looking at the item via a wearable computing device, to which the system can respond by displaying the giver, the date of the gift, the gift amount, the gift occasion, any notes from the giver, and any other available metadata describing the gift, Figure 17A).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Isaacson discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1 and 12. Isaacson further discloses wherein the at least one context option comprises a recipient option, and wherein the one or more modules are executable by the at least one processor to present a recipient menu that includes multiple different selectable recipient identifiers, wherein the user input to provide the one or more context values comprises a user selection of at least one of the recipient identifiers (Isaacson: Figure 5B - recipient).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Isaacson discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1 and 12. Isaacson further discloses wherein the at least one context option comprises a transaction notes option, and wherein the one or more modules are executable by the at least one processor to present a notes field, and wherein the user input to provide the one or more context values comprises user input to the notes field to specify transaction notes for the fulfillment transaction (Isaacson: Figure 5B - other, Figure 17A - message).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Isaacson discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1 and 12. Isaacson further discloses wherein the context options comprise two or more of a transaction purpose option, a recipient option, or a transaction notes option, and wherein the one or more modules are executable by the at least one processor to present the one or more context values in the representation of the transaction record as one or more context values for the one or more of the transaction purpose option, the recipient option, or the transaction notes option (Isaacson: Figure 5B, Figure 17A).
Regarding claims 8, 17, and 20, Isaacson discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1, 12, and 19. Isaacson further discloses :receive, via the fulfillment application, user input to select a filter control; present one or more fulfillment context filter options; receive user selection of a fulfillment context filter option of the one or more filter options; present filter values for the selected fulfillment context filter option; receive user selection of one or more of the fulfillment context filter values; and cause one or more filtered transaction records to be presented that correspond to the selected one or more fulfillment context filter values (Isaacson: Figure 39 - search and filter drop downs).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Isaacson discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 8 and 17. Isaacson further discloses receive user input of a search term to a search field; and cause a subset of the one or more filtered transaction records that match the search term to be presented (Isaacson: Figure 39 - search and filter drop downs).
Regarding claim 10, Isaacson discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Isaacson further discloses present a contacts graphical user interface that includes contact details for a contact; and present, as part of the contacts graphical user interface, a fulfillment history region that includes information describing one or more past fulfillment transactions associated with the contact (Isaacson: Figure 13).
Regarding claim 11, Isaacson discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 10. Isaacson further discloses present, as part of the contacts graphical user interface, a transaction control; receive an indication of user selection of the transaction control; and present a fulfillment graphical user interface to be presented that includes one or more fulfillment transaction recommendations that are filtered based at least in part on the contact (Isaacson: Figure 13).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN G PALAVECINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Jeffrey 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.
KATHLEEN GAGE PALAVECINO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/KATHLEEN PALAVECINO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights