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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Upon further consideration, Examiner notes that the amendments “generating, based on the user input, training data comprising at least one of: a viewing time of the offer window or an impression of at least one other merchant of the one or more selected merchants” do not overcome the rejection made under § 101. These limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, wherein all uses of the recited abstract idea require such data gathering (i.e. receiving user selection of a merchant) and data output (i.e. displaying add on offers associated with particular merchants) (see2106.05(g)). The rejection is maintained.
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 21-22, 24-25, 27-28, 30-31, 33-38, 40-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 21-22, 24-25, 27-28, 30-31, 33-38, 40-45, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 21 recites a computing system. Claim 30 recites a method. Claim 40 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable media.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 30 recites the abstract idea of managing add-ons for delivery service orders (see at least paragraph 1). This idea is described by the following steps:
A method comprising:
accessing data indicative of a primary order request, wherein the primary order request is eligible for an add-on order offer;
determining a cost of fulfilling the add-on order offer based on an offset value indicating at least one subsequent action associated with the add-on order offer, wherein determining the cost comprises:
accessing the offset value; and
processing the offset value to generate output comprising a match between the primary order request, the add-on order offer, and one or more selected merchants from a plurality of candidate merchants;
determining a conversion rate indicative of a probability of fulfilling a respective add-on order associated with the add-on order offer from the one or more selected merchants;
communicating add-on order offers to a user based on the conversion rate and the one or more selected merchants; and
in response to user selection of at least one merchant of the one or more selected merchants for the add-on order offer, communicating menu items associated with the at least one merchant.
Claims 21 and 40 recite equivalent limitations.
This idea falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas as it is directed towards commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors (i.e., offering add-on orders to delivery services orders for food delivery).
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 21, 30, and 40 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 21 and 40 recite one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraphs 147-166) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Claims 21, 30 and 40 additionally recite using a first machine-learned model and a second machine-learned model. However, the machine-learned models are recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to perform the process (i.e., determining the cost of fulfilling an add-on order offer and determining a conversion rate) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 21, 30, and 40 also recites the limitations “modifying, based on the conversion rate and the one or more selected merchants, a user interface to display an offer window indicative of the add-on order offer, the offer window comprising a plurality of user interface elements; and in response to user input indicating at least one merchant of the one or more selected merchants for the add-on order offer, modifying the user interface to display one or more menu items associated with the at least one merchant”.
Claims 21, 30 and 40 also recites “generating, based on the user input, training data comprising at least one of: a viewing time of the offer window or an impression of at least one other merchant of the one or more selected merchants.
However, these limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, wherein all uses of the recited abstract idea require such data gathering (i.e. receiving user selection of a merchant) and data output
(i.e. displaying add on offers associated with particular merchants) (see2106.05(g)). Note how the abstract idea above includes the offer and menu communicating aspects of the claimed modifying steps.
Step 2B: Claims 21, 30, and 40 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 21,30 and 40 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
With respect to the limitations determined to be insignificant extra solution activity, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). For example, at least paragraph 31 describes a network system that facilitates a request for services received from a user including a selection of a merchant.
Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. For example, at least paragraph 107describes presenting an offer for an add-on order to be added to a primary order.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22, 24-25, 27-28, 30-31, 33-38, 40-45 remain allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
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 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 MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
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 A. 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688