DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the Amendments filed on 06/04/2026.
Claims 1 and 13-21 are cancelled.
Claims 2-12 are rejected.
Claims 2-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 06/04/2026, has been entered. Claims 2, 7-8, and 11-12 has been amended.
Priority
This patent Application is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 11,907,989 filed 10/28/2021. This benefit has been received and acknowledged and therefore, the instant claims receive the effective filing date of 10/28/2021.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/04/2026 has been entered.
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 2-12 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 2 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-obtaining, by a processor of a server through interaction with an interface presented on a mobile device operated by a user, a selection of at least one candidate food item;
-obtaining, by the processor, a first list comprising ingredients in a recipe associated with the at least one candidate food item;
-searching, by the processor, a product catalog of a store for the ingredients using an application programming interface;
-filtering, by the processor, the ingredients based on inventory data for the store to determine availability of each ingredient at the store;
-generating, by the processor, based at least in part on the searching and the filtering, a second list comprising ingredients from the first list that are present in the store;
-generating, by the processor using a planogram of the store, a navigable route through the store to retrieve the ingredients of the second list;
-providing, by the server to the interface, a clickable route option, wherein responsive to a selection of the clickable route option, the navigable route is graphically displayed within the interface on the mobile device to enable user interaction and user in-store navigation guidance;
-organizing, by the processor through interaction with the interface, an order of the ingredients within the second list based on a route to pick the at least one candidate food item within the store; and
-alerting, by the processor through interaction within the interface, the user to select a different store when the inventory data indicates that an ingredient from the first list is unavailable at the store
The above limitations recite the concept of obtaining a first list of ingredients in a recipe of a selected candidate food item, generating a second list of the ingredients based on searching a product catalog of a store, and providing a navigable route through the store to retrieve the ingredients of the second list. 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 obtaining, by a processor of a server through interaction with an interface presented on a mobile device operated by a user, a selection of at least one candidate food item; obtaining, by the processor, a first list comprising ingredients in a recipe associated with the at least one candidate food item; searching, by the processor, a product catalog of a store for the ingredients using an application programming interface; filtering, by the processor, the ingredients based on inventory data for the store to determine availability of each ingredient at the store; generating, by the processor, based at least in part on the searching and the filtering, a second list comprising ingredients from the first list that are present in the store; generating, by the processor using a planogram of the store, a navigable route through the store to retrieve the ingredients of the second list; providing, by the server to the interface, a clickable route option, wherein responsive to a selection of the clickable route option, the navigable route is graphically displayed within the interface on the mobile device to enable user interaction and user in-store navigation guidance; organizing, by the processor through interaction with the interface, an order of the ingredients within the second list based on a route to pick the at least one candidate food item within the store; and alerting, by the processor through interaction within the interface, the user to select a different store when the inventory data indicates that an ingredient from the first list is unavailable at the store are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that that the selection is obtained by a processor of a server and through the interface presented on a mobile device, that the obtaining is by the processor, that the searching is by the processor and using an application programming interface, that the filtering is by the processor, that the generating is by the processor, that the generating is by the processor, that the providing is by the server to the interface, that the route option is clickable, that the navigable route is graphically displayed within the interface on the mobile device, that the organizing is by the processor through interaction with the interface, and that the alerting is by the processor through interaction within the interface, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “processor,” “server,” “interface,” “mobile device,” “application programming interface,” “clickable,” and “graphically” language, “obtaining,” “obtaining,” “searching,” “filtering,” “generating,” “generating,” “providing,” “organizing,” and “alerting” 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).
-obtaining, by a processor of a server through interaction with an interface presented on a mobile device operated by a user, a selection of at least one candidate food item;
-obtaining, by the processor, a first list comprising ingredients in a recipe associated with the at least one candidate food item;
-searching, by the processor, a product catalog of a store for the ingredients using an application programming interface;
-filtering, by the processor, the ingredients based on inventory data for the store to determine availability of each ingredient at the store;
-generating, by the processor, based at least in part on the searching and the filtering, a second list comprising ingredients from the first list that are present in the store;
-generating, by the processor using a planogram of the store, a navigable route through the store to retrieve the ingredients of the second list;
-providing, by the server to the interface, a clickable route option, wherein responsive to a selection of the clickable route option, the navigable route is graphically displayed within the interface on the mobile device to enable user interaction and user in-store navigation guidance;
-organizing, by the processor through interaction with the interface, an order of the ingredients within the second list based on a route to pick the at least one candidate food item within the store; and
-alerting, by the processor through interaction within the interface, the user to select a different store when the inventory data indicates that an ingredient from the first list is unavailable at the store
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 2 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 [0016] of Applicant’s specification – “Each customer-operated device 120 comprises a processor 121 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 122.Medium 122 comprises executable instructions for a mobile app 123. The executable instructions when executed by processor 121 from medium 122cause processor 121 to perform operations discussed herein and below with respect to app 123.” Specifically, the additional elements of a processor, a server, an interface, a mobile device, an application programming interface, a clickable route option, and graphically displaying are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of obtaining data, searching data, filtering data, generating data, providing data, organizing data, and alerting) 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 2, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 2 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.
Dependent claims 3-12, 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 3-12 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 5 and 9-10 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 3-4, 6-8, and 11-12 recite the additional elements of the interface, a device, training a machine learning model (model), an existing retailer application, and another application programming interface 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 3-12 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 3-12 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claim 2, dependent claims 3-12 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. obtaining a first list of ingredients in a recipe of a selected candidate food item, generating a second list of the ingredients based on searching a product catalog of a store, and providing a navigable route through the store to retrieve the ingredients of the second list) 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 amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
In the present application, claims 2-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 101 set forth in this Office action. The following is the Examiner's statement of reasons of allowance:
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §103, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the applicant’s invention. Claims 2-12 are allowable over the prior art as follows:
Claims 2-12 are allowable over 35 U.S.C. §103 as follows:
The most relevant prior art made of record includes previously cited Choi et al. (US 2020/0118461 A1), previously cited Kremen et al. (US 2017/0316488 A1), previously cited Neumann et al. (US 10,861,076 B1), and previously cited Chachek et al. (US 2020/0302510 A1). Choi teaches obtaining, by a processor of a server through interaction with an interface presented on a mobile device operated by a user, a selection of at least one candidate food item (Choi, see at least: [0054] and [0070]); obtaining, by the processor, a first list comprising ingredients in a recipe associated with the at least one candidate food item (Choi, see at least: [0055]); searching, by the processor, for the ingredients (Choi, see at least: [0054] and [0096]); generating, by the processor, based at least in part on the searching, a second list comprising ingredients from the first list that are present in the store (Choi, see at least: [0056] and [0054]); the ingredients of the second list (Choi, see at least: [0056]); the ingredients within the second list and the at least one candidate food item (Choi, see at least: [0054] and [0055]).
Choi is deficient in a number of ways. As written, the claims require searching, by the processor, a product catalog of a store for the ingredients using an application programming interface; filtering, by the processor, the ingredients based on inventory data for the store to determine availability of each ingredient at the store; generating, based at least in part on the searching and the filtering, a second list comprising ingredients from the first list that are present in the store; generating, by the processor using a planogram of the store, a navigable route through the store to retrieve the ingredients of the second list; providing, by the server to the interface, a clickable route option, wherein responsive to a selection of the clickable route option, the navigable route is graphically displayed within the interface on the mobile device to enable user interaction and user in-store navigation guidance; organizing, by the processor through interaction with the interface, an order of the products within the second list based on a route to pick food items within the store; and alerting, by the processor through interaction within the interface, the user to select a different store when the inventory data indicates that an ingredient from the first list is unavailable at the store.
Regarding Kremen, Kremen teaches searching, by the processor, a product catalog of a store for the ingredients using an application programming interface (Kremen, see at least: [0077]); and alerting, by the processor through interaction within the interface, the user when the inventory data indicates that an ingredient from the first list is unavailable at the store (Kremen, see at least: [0077])
Though disclosing these features, Kremen does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Regarding Neumann, Neumann teaches filtering, by the processor, the ingredients based on inventory data for the store to determine availability of each ingredient at the store (Neumann, see at least: Col. 16 Ln. 58-67 & Col. 17 Ln. 1-27); generating, based at least in part on the searching and the filtering, a second list comprising ingredients from the first list that are present in the store (Neumann, see at least: Col. 16 Ln. 58-67 & Col. 17 Ln. 1-27).
Though disclosing these features, Neumann does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Regarding Chachek, Chachek teaches generating, using a planogram of the store, a navigable route through the store to retrieve the products (Chachek, see at least: [0101] and [0087]); providing, by the server to the interface, a clickable route option, wherein responsive to a selection of the clickable route option, the navigable route is graphically displayed within the interface on the mobile device to enable user interaction and user in-store navigation guidance (Chachek, see at least: [0087]); and organizing, by the processor through interaction with the interface, an order of the products within the second list based on a route to pick food items within the store (Chachek, see at least: [0078] and [0079]).
Though disclosing these features, Chachek does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Ultimately, the particular combination of limitations as claimed, is not anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of Choi, Chachek, Kremen, and Neumann, and the totality of the prior art. While certain references may disclose more general concepts and parts of the claim, the prior art available does not specifically disclose the particular combination of these limitations.
Choi, Chachek, Kremen, and Neumann, however, do not teach or suggest, alone or in combination the claimed invention. Examiner emphasizes that the prior art/additional art would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e. hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Cited NPL Silva (i.e. reference U cited 03/03/2026 and 07/06/2026 in PTO-892) teaches applying machine learning algorithms to prepare personalized grocery shopping lists, but does not teach or suggest alone or in combination the claimed invention.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would be a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by Examiner that, in light of the above and further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that independent claim 2 has been amended to include the following additional elements beyond what was previously presented: (1) the method now recites that the server obtains the selection through interaction with an interface presented on a mobile device operated by a user; (2) the method now recites filtering the ingredients based on inventory data for the store to determine availability of each ingredient at the store; (3) the method now recites providing the navigable route through the interface on the mobile device to enable user interaction and user in-store navigation guidance; and (4) the method now recites alerting the user to select a different store when the inventory data indicates that an ingredient from the first list is unavailable at the store. These amendments add concrete specificity to the claim, tie the method steps to specific interacting hardware components - a server processor and a mobile device - and reflect specific technical operations that improve how the system itself functions (Remarks, pages 5-6).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Obtaining the selection through interaction by a user, filtering the ingredients based on inventory data for the store to determine availability of each ingredient at the store, providing the navigable route to enable user interaction and user in-store navigation guidance, and alerting the user to select a different store when the inventory data indicates that an ingredient from the first list is unavailable at the store are not addition elements, rather, these limitation fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a), as they encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities. The recited additional elements of an interface and a mobile device 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 claims are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Remarks, page 6).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 claims are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that Ex parte Desjardins is directly applicable to the current claims. The ARP issued the following express directive that is binding on Examiners: "Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality." The ARP specifically condemned the approach of "essentially equat[ing] any machine learning with an unpatentable 'algorithm' and the remaining additional elements as 'generic computer components,' without adequate explanation." The ARP found this approach to be legally insufficient and reversed the rejection on that basis. The Examiner's rejection in the present application commits precisely this error. The Examiner has dismissed the specific technical elements of claim 2 - inventory filtering, real-time availability-based alerting, planogram-based spatial route generation, and graphical interface rendering on a mobile device - as merely generic computer components performing generic computer functions, without adequate explanation of why the specific ordered combination of these elements does not reflect a technical improvement. Under Desjardins, this analysis is legally insufficient (Remarks, pages 6-7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, Examiner reiterates that inventory filtering, real-time availability-based alerting, and planogram-based spatial route generation are not addition elements, they encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities. In Ex Parte Desjardins the claims were not found eligible because they computer implemented, rather, the recited claims train the machine learning model in such a way that it “allows the model to preserve performance on earlier tasks even as it learns new ones, directly addressing the technical problem of 'catastrophic forgetting' in continual learning systems" (see Ex Parte Desjardins). The machine learning itself was improved. Unlike Desjardins, no such technical improvement is recited in the amended claims. The recited additional elements of an interface and a mobile device 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 claims are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that Ex parte Kelley affirms Desjardins and is directly applicable to the amended claims. The broader principle established in Kelley- affirming Desjardins - is directly applicable here. Kelley confirms that when claims reflect specific technical improvements that go beyond merely using technology in a new commercial environment, and when those improvements are reflected in the claim language and supported by the specification, the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. The amended claims of the present application satisfy this standard, as detailed below (Remarks, pages 7-8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike Desjardins and Ex parte Kelley, the amended claims fail to reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that DDR Holdings supports eligibility of the amended claims. The claims do not merely recite a known shopping or recipe process implemented on a generic computer. The claims recite a specific, ordered technical method in which a server processor interacts with a mobile device interface, searches a store product catalog through an application programming interface, filters ingredients based on real-time inventory data, generates a navigable route through the store using a planogram, graphically displays that route on the mobile device in response to a user selection of a clickable route option, and alerts the user to select a different store when an ingredient is unavailable. This ordered combination of steps is necessarily rooted in computer technology and overcomes problems specifically arising in the context of computer-implemented retail systems - namely the inability of conventional systems to integrate recipe data, real-time inventory data, and spatial store layout data in a single automated method delivered to a mobile device. As in DDR Holdings, the claims when taken together as an ordered combination recite an invention that is not merely the routine or conventional use of computer technology (Remarks, page 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In DDR, the claims overcome a problem or propose a solution “specifically arising in the realm of computer [technology]” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. Unlike DDR, the current claims fail to reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea and are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that BASCOM supports eligibility of the amended claims. The amended claims of the present application are analogous to the claims in BASCOM. Even if each individual element of claim 2 were considered known in isolation, the specific, nonconventional arrangement of those elements - integrating server-based processing, mobile device interaction, real-time inventory filtering, planogram-based spatial route generation, conditional store-switching alerts, and graphical route display through a clickable interface element - constitutes a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement that represents a technical improvement over prior approaches to recipe-based shopping assistance. As in BASCOM, the inventive concept resides in this specific ordered combination of elements, not in any single element considered alone. The claims carve out a specific technical implementation that is not directed to preempting all ways of performing recipe-based shopping assistance, but rather to a specific computer-implemented method integrating multiple data sources and system components in a defined operational sequence (Remarks, pages 8-9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In BASCOM, the inventive concept is found in the unconventional and non-generic combination of known elements, providing individually customizable filtering at the remote ISP server. The claim while "involving" an abstract idea is not "directed" to that idea standing alone. It is not simply directed to the abstract idea of filtering content on the internet or on generic computer components performing conventional activities. Instead, claim 1 "carve[s] out a specific location for the filtering system (a remote ISP server) and require the filtering system to give users the ability to customize filtering for their individual network accounts." Unlike, BASCOM, the amended claims merely utilize generic computer components to provide recipe-based shopping assistance; providing recipe-based shopping assistance is a business problem that improves the abstract idea, not an improvement to another technology or technical field.
Additionally, preemption is not the test for eligibility. While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the Subject Matter Eligibility Test. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981) ("We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pre-empted, the claim should be eligible for patent protection"). See also Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d –, slip op. at 34 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics, 839 F.3d at 1150, 120 USPQ2d at 1483; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320-21, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Sequenom, 788 F.3d at 1379, 115 USPQ2d at 1158 (See MPEP 2106.04 section I). Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims reflect specific technical improvements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the server-mobile device architecture reflects specific technical implementation. Amended claim 2 now expressly recites that a processor of a server obtains the selection through interaction with an interface presented on a mobile device operated by a user, and that the server provides the navigable route through the interface on the mobile device to enable user interaction and user in-store navigation guidance. This reflects a specific technical architecture involving a server processor and a mobile device working in coordination. The specification describes this architecture as follows: "Cloud/Server 110 comprises at least one processor 111 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 112" and "Each customer-operated device 120 comprises a processor 121 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 122. Medium 122 comprises executable instructions for a mobile app 123." This is not a generic recitation of a computer. It is a specific client-server architecture in which a server processor performs the core computational operations and delivers results to a mobile device interface for user interaction and in-store navigation guidance (Remarks, pages 9-10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely reciting the utilization of a processor of a server and an interface presented on a mobile device to present navigation data does not improve the technology itself. For instance, any generic computer components can perform the recited steps. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea and are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims reflect specific technical improvements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as inventory filtering and alerting steps reflect a specific technical improvement. Amended claim 2 recites filtering the ingredients based on inventory data for the store to determine availability of each ingredient at the store and alerting the user to select a different store when the inventory data indicates that an ingredient from the first list is unavailable at the store. These steps constitute a specific automated data-driven decision process embedded within the computer-implemented method. The system does not merely retrieve data - it evaluates ingredient availability against current inventory data and conditionally triggers an alert that redirects the user's workflow to a different store. The specification describes this as follows: "the transaction system 133 further provides access to each store's current inventory of items, such that list/feedback manager 115 can determine when a given store is out of a needed ingredient for a user chosen food dish and alert the user through app 123 to select a different store because of the missing ingredient at the user's selected store." This is a specific system-level technical operation that changes the operational output of the system based on a specific data condition - precisely the type of concrete technical improvement that integrates an abstract concept into a practical application (Remarks, page 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Filtering the ingredients based on inventory data for the store to determine availability of each ingredient at the store and alerting the user to select a different store when the inventory data indicates that an ingredient from the first list is unavailable at the store encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities. Merely implementing these steps on generic computer components does not improve the technology itself. Changing the data that is provided improves the data, it does not improve the generic computer components that provide the data. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea and are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims reflect specific technical improvements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the planogram-based route generation and graphical display reflect a specific technical process. Amended claim 2 recites generating, using a planogram of the store, a navigable route through the store to retrieve the ingredients of the second list, and providing a clickable route option wherein the navigable route is graphically displayed within the interface on the mobile device to enable user interaction and user in-store navigation guidance. This is a specific technical process for computationally processing spatial store layout data to generate an optimized traversal route and rendering it graphically within a mobile device interface through a clickable element. The specification describes this as follows: "Using the API, list/feedback manager 115 may also obtain a planogram from transaction system 133 for the store. The planogram shows the aisles, shelves, displays and overall layout of the store," and "list/feedback manager 115 provides with the list a clickable route from the customer-facing interface of app 123 that when activated by the user displays graphically and/or provides text instructions how the user is traverse and navigate the store to pick each ingredient from the list over an optimal picking route." This is not a generic display function. It is a specific technical process of transforming spatial data structures into a graphically rendered navigable route delivered to a mobile device interface (Remarks, pages 10-11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Computationally processing spatial store layout data to generate an optimized traversal route is a sales activity and a planogram is a diagram, it is not an additional element. Additionally, while the claims recite providing a clickable route option, the claims do not recite the technical detail regarding how this link is generated or specific technical features of how it’s displayed. Furthermore, merely utilizing an API to retrieve data does not improve the API technology itself. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea and are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that the claims as a whole constitute a non-conventional ordered combination. As the Federal Circuit held in BASCOM, an inventive concept can reside in the nonconventional and non-generic arrangement of known elements. Amended claim 2, when evaluated as a whole, recites a specific ordered sequence of technical operations: (1) obtaining a user's food item selection through a server processor interacting with a mobile device interface; (2) obtaining a recipe-based ingredient list; (3) searching a store product catalog for those ingredients using an application programming interface; ( 4) filtering those ingredients based on inventory data to determine availability; (5) generating a second list of available ingredients based on the searching and filtering; (6) generating a navigable route using a planogram; (7) providing a clickable route option that graphically displays the route within the mobile device interface to enable user interaction and in-store navigation guidance; (8) organizing the ingredient order based on the instore route; and (9) alerting the user to select a different store when an ingredient is unavailable. This ordered combination integrates multiple data sources - recipe data, product catalog data, inventory data, and planogram spatial data - in a specific, coordinated technical sequence delivered through a server-mobile device architecture. This is not a mere recitation of generic computer functions applied to a commercial idea. It is a specific non-conventional technical implementation that, as a whole, integrates any abstract concept into a practical application under the standards established by Desjardins, Kelley, DDR Holdings, and BASCOM (Remarks, page 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in response to the arguments above, the amended claims are not similar to the cases of Desjardins, Kelley, DDR Holdings, and BASCOM. Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually. The additional elements 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). Additionally, utilizing different types of data improves the abstract idea it does not improve the technology itself. Furthermore, as is described in the MPEP 2106.05(II) (i.e. “Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should: … Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant”), step 2B considers whether additional elements concluded to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A are more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Examiner did not identify any of the additional elements as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A so there weren’t elements to be evaluated in terms of whether they are more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Oakes et al. (US 9,129,332 B1) teaches price searching and intelligent shopping lists on a mobile device.
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
Prosecution Insights