DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 03/16/2026. Currently, claims 1, 2, 4-10 and 12-22 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 8-10, 16 and 17 have been amended. Claims 21 and 22 are newly added. Claims 3 and 11 have been cancelled.
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, 2, 4-10 and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for managing real-time purchase item substitution.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“receive either a substitute response or a rejection of the one or more substitute items from the second computing device; [receiving user substitute response input]
in response to receiving the substitute response by the second computing device: when the substitute response indicates a selection of one of the one or more substitute items, generate fulfillment update data configured to cause substitution of the selected one of the one or more substitute items in place of the first item during fulfillment; and [updating order data based on user input/response]
in response to receiving the rejection of the one or more substitute items by the second computing device, (i) dynamically update the one or more substitute items using a machine learning model that incorporates real-time feedback received during fulfillment to generate a revised set of substitute items, and (ii) transmit updated order update data including the revised set of substitute items to the second computing device prior to fulfillment completion, such that the revised set of substitute items are displayed in the graphical user interface rendered on the second computing device in real time until a selection or final rejection is made. [repeating item substitution updated based on user input/response]
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring user input, 2) updating/replacing purchase order items, and 3) updating/removing purchase order items.
The above steps describe the process of managing real-time purchase item substitution. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The cited claim recites additional element in the form of a computing device, having a processor and memory, to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the steps of “receiving real-time fulfillment data…” and “transmitting order update data…” represents sending and receiving data, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the additional limitation of “wherein the first computing device and the second computing device operate asynchronously and communicate via a distributed fulfillment orchestration process that coordinates real-time updates and interactions prior to fulfillment completion” simply describes “transmitting and receiving user input and purchase order update” between one or more computing system. The steps of sending and receiving user input and purchase order updates, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. “Transmitting/receiving information over a network” has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). In addition, the computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
For example, claims 5, 13, 20 and 21 describe the content/data type of the real-time fulfillment data and order update data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 4, 7, 12, 16, 18 and 21 describe the item substitution selection process encompassed by the above identified abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 13, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2023/0111745 (Kruck et al. – hereinafter Kruck), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2022/0012796 (Pugh et al. – hereinafter Pugh).
Referring to claim 1, Kruck discloses a system, comprising:
a processor; [See paragraphs 0014-0016, 0060, 0062, 0070]
a non-transitory memory storing instructions which, when executed, cause the processor to: [See paragraphs 0014-0016, 0060, 0062, 0070]
receive real-time fulfillment data indicating unavailability of a first item identified in an order from a first computing device, wherein the real-time fulfillment data is generated in response to an input received by the first computing device; [See paragraphs 0015, 0048]
transmit order update data indicating unavailability of the first item and one or more substitute items to a second computing device, wherein the order update data includes at least a portion of the real-time fulfillment data, and wherein the order update data causes the second computing device to generate a graphical user interface including the one or more substitute items and the portion of the order update data; [See paragraphs 0015, 0016, 0020-0022, 0048, 0050, 005]
receive either a substitute response or a rejection of the one or more substitute itesm from the second computing device; [See paragraphs 0020, 0051]
in response to receiving the substitute response by the second computing device: [See paragraphs0020, 0051]
when the substitute response indicates a selection of one of the one or more substitute items, generate fulfillment update data configured to cause substitution of the selected one of the one or more substitute items in place of the first item during fulfillment; [See paragraphs 0020, 0051]
in response to receiving a rejection of the one or more substitute items by the second computing device (i) update the one or more substitutes items using a machine learning model that incorporated user feedback. [See paragraphs 0051-0056]
wherein the first computing device and the second computing device operate asynchronously and communicate via a distributed fulfillment orchestration process that coordinates real-time updates and interactions prior to fulfillment completion. [See paragraphs 0015, 0038, 0048, 0049 – The BOPUS system coordinates the fulfillment process and coordinates real-time interaction and updates between a store employee and a customer.]
Kruck does not explicitly disclose the limitation:
in response to receiving the rejection of the one or more substitute items by the second computing device, (i) dynamically update the one or more substitute items that incorporates feedback received during fulfillment to generate a revised set of substitute items, and (ii) transmit updated order update data including the revised set of substitute items to the second computing device prior to fulfillment completion, such that the revised set of substitute items are displayed in the graphical user interface rendered on the second computing device in real time until a selection or final rejection is made.
Pugh teaches a system with the limitation: in response to receiving the rejection of the one or more substitute items by the second computing device, (i) dynamically update the one or more substitute items that incorporates feedback received during fulfillment to generate a revised set of substitute items, and (ii) transmit updated order update data including the revised set of substitute items to the second computing device prior to fulfillment completion, such that the revised set of substitute items are displayed in the graphical user interface rendered on the second computing device in real time until a selection or final rejection is made. [See paragraphs 0214-0218 – The user may request other substitution items if the initially recommended items are not acceptable. The system provides additional substitution items in response to user’s request.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Kruck to have incorporated a real-time item substitution feature as in Pugh with the motivation of recommending an item during an order fulfillment process. [See Kruck paragraphs 0051-0056; Pugh paragraphs 0214-0218]
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Kruck and Pugh discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the interface generated in response to the order update data includes at least one interactive element configured to receive an input to define the substitute response, and wherein the substitute response is generated in response to receiving the input. [See Kruck paragraphs 0050, 0051]
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Kruck and Pugh discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the second interface is configured to facilitate communication between the first computing device and the second computing device. [See Kruck paragraphs 0016, 0051]
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Kruck and Pugh discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the machine learning model comprises a trained substitution model. [See Kruck paragraphs 0022-0024, 0052]
Referring to claims 9, 13, 15 and 16, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1, 5, 7 and 8, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Referring to claims 17 and 20, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 5, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Claims 2, 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruck in view of Pugh as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2013/0254075 (Ballaro et al. – hereinafter Ballaro).
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Kruck and Pugh discloses the system of claim 1 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein, prior to transmitting the order update data, the portion of the fulfillment data included in the order update data is formatted from a first format to a second format.
Ballaro teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the order data is received in a first format and, prior to transmitting the order update data, the portion of the fulfillment data included in the order update is formatted to a second format. [See paragraphs 0094, 0655-0657, 0674]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of the combined teachings of Kruck and Pugh to have incorporated a data formatting feature as in Ballaro with the motivation of converting data from multiple sources into formats compatible with the multiple sources. [See Ballaro paragraphs 0094, 0089, 0090]
Referring to claim 10, it recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 2, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Referring to claim 22, the combination of Kruck, Pugh and Ballaro discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the distributed fulfillment orchestration process is implemented by a fulfillment orchestration computing device configured to:
receive the real-time fulfillment data and extract substitution data for further processing; [See Ballaro paragraphs 0094, 0655-0657, 0674]
transform the extracted substitution data from a first data format into a second data format suitable for further processing; and [See Ballaro paragraphs 0094, 0655-0657, 0674]
convert the order update data into an application-specific format suitable for ingestion and processing by an application executing on the second computing device prior to transmission of the order update data. [See Kruck paragraph 0028]
Claims 4, 12, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruck in view of Pugh as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2021/0233143 (Cho et al. – hereinafter Cho).
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Kruck and Pugh discloses the system of claim 1 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein at least one of the one or more substitute items is selected based on substitute preference data associated with the second computing device.
Cho teaches a system with the limitation: wherein at least one of the one or more substitute items is selected based on substitute preference data associated with the second computing device. [See paragraphs 0052, 0072]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of the combined teachings of Kruck and Pugh to have incorporated an item substitution feature as in Cho with the motivation of recommending a replacement item when an ordered item is unavailable. [See Cho paragraphs 0021-0024; Kruck paragraphs 0018, 0021-0025]
Referring to claim 12, it recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 4, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Referring to claim 18, the combination of Kruck, Pugh and Cho discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the one or more substitute items comprise a first substitute item and a second substitute item, wherein the first substitute item is defined by the real-time fulfillment data and the second substitute item is selected based on substitute preference data associated with the second computing device. [See Cho paragraphs 0052, 0063, 0070, 0074, 0081, 0099-0101 – Substitute item recommendations can be made based on user preference and item similarity. The result is ranked and presented to the user.]
Referring to claim 21, the combination of Kruck, Pugh and Cho discloses the system of claim 1, wherein:
the machine learning model comprises a neural network trained to generate substitute item recommendations; [See Cho paragraphs 0061, 0070, 0074, 0094, 0097]
the neural network is configured to receive an input comprising an unavailable item and generate one or more recommended substitutions based on item similarity and substitute acceptability; and [See Cho paragraphs 0061, 0070, 0074, 0094, 0097]
the neural network is trained using an iterative training process that receives a training dataset comprising anchor items and one or more associated acceptable substitutes and iteratively adjusts parameters of the neural network to minimize a cost value indicative of substitution acceptability. [See Cho paragraphs 0061, 0070, 0074, 0094, 0097]
Claims 6, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruck in view of Pugh as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0089138 (Borders et al. – hereinafter Borders).
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Kruck and Pugh discloses the system of claim 1 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations: wherein the processor is configured to:
receive fulfillment completion data from the first computing device; and
in response to receiving the fulfillment completion data, transmit second order update data to the second computing device, wherein the second order update data is configured to cause the second computing device to transition to a second interface that prevents modification of the order.
Borders teaches a system with the limitations:
receive fulfillment completion data from the first computing device; and [See paragraphs 0012, 0014 – An order typically cannot be modified after it has been processed or fulfilled.]
in response to receiving the fulfillment completion data, transmit second order update data to the second computing device, wherein the second order update data is configured to cause the second computing device to transition to a second interface that prevents modification of the order. [See paragraphs 0012, 0014 – An order typically cannot be modified after it has been processed or fulfilled.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of the combined teachings of Kruck and Pugh to have incorporated an order fulfillment feature as in Borders with the motivation of preventing a user from modifying an order after fulfillment. [See Borders paragraph 0014]
Referring to claim 14, it recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 6, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Referring to claim 19, it recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 6, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed under section 101 above, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
The claims describe a process of recommending substitute items during an order fulfillment. The claim limitations describe receiving real-time fulfillment data indicating unavailability of one or more items from a customer order. An order update indicating the unavailable item(s), in addition to a one or more substitution items are transmitted and displayed to a customer. Based on the customer’s response, the purchase order is updated accordingly. In light of accepting the substitution item(s), the purchase order is updated and fulfilled. In light of rejecting the substitution items, the substitution item(s) are revised and presented to the user.
The claims describe the process of recommending substitute items during an order fulfillment, which covers, managing interactions between people or behaviors, that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claimed invention uses computer technology to provide the described business solution. The recited first computing device, second computing device, machine learning model and distributed fulfillment orchestration process, provide a computing environment for performing the limitations of the abstract idea. In other words, the recited computing elements serve as a tool to perform the judicial exception. Further, the additional component of coordinating “asynchronously communicating user inputs/responses and updating user interfaces” simply describes “transmitting and receiving user input and displaying purchase order update”. The steps of sending and receiving user input and displaying purchase order updates, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In addition, the feature of “dynamically adapt recommendations based on real-time feedback and generating revised substitute items that are transmitted prior to fulfillment completion” and “coordinating transmission and display of revised substitute items in a graphical user interface” amounts to well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions defined by the courts as “receiving and transmitting data over a network” and “performing repetitive calculation”. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
102 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 15-17 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
103 Rejection(s)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 18 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights