DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 7, 2026, has been entered.
In the response filed May 7, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 10, 13, and 19; and canceled claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 20. Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, and 15-19, are pending in the current application.
Notice of 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 for claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, and 15-19, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible as they present a solution to a technical problem. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the training of a model and the mechanisms in the claim language are incorporated to specifically address the problems of “prediction drift” and “inaccurate” predictions. Here, there is no specific discussion in the disclosure that identifies the improvement to machine learning technology nor is there any discussion explaining how the machine learning model being trained overcomes the problem of “prediction drift” or any variation thereof. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth determining a waiting time based on locations of retail locations to pick up batches to fulfill, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Here, the alleged improvements are non-technical subjective/abstract improvements, not technical improvements to computers or technological processes, but addresses a business challenge regarding the improved efficiency in collecting items for delivery (Current application, Par. [0021]). Determining a waiting time based on locations of retail locations to pick up batches to fulfill is directed to, if anything, a business “improvement” (e.g., efficient methods and ways to sell goods to a consumer). That a computer is used to select eligible entities serves merely to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby 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 1, 4, 6-10, 13, and 15-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 4, and 6-9 are drawn to a process; claims 10, 13, and 15-18 are drawn to a product of manufacture; and claim 19 is drawn to a machine, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of claims 10 and 19) recites/describes the following steps:
“identify batches to fulfill for a plurality of different retail locations;”
“obtaining, …, a location of the picker client device;”
“identifying, …, a plurality of retail locations within a threshold distance of the location of the picker client device, wherein the threshold distance from the location of the picker client device defines a zone;”
“for each retail location in the zone over a past period of time: determining a batch volume for the retail location; determining an average batch volume for the zone; and generating a waiting time by inputting the batch volume for the retail location and the average batch volume for the zone… on historical batch volumes for the retail location and historical batch volumes for the zone and historical waiting times for receiving batches at the retail location and for the zone;”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth determining a waiting time based on locations of retail locations to pick up batches to fulfill, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Each of the depending claims 4, 6-9, 13, and 15-18, likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any elements recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of:
“a computer system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” “providing, by the computer system and to a picker client device, a picker client application through which a picker can identify batches to fulfill for a plurality of different retail locations,” and “a model,” (Claim 1);
“a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions,” “a processor,” “providing, by a computer system and to a picker client device, a picker client application through which a picker can identify batches to fulfill for a plurality of different retail locations,” and “a model,” (Claim 10);
“a system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” “providing, by a computer system and to a picker client device, a picker client application through which a picker can identify batches to fulfill for a plurality of different retail locations,” and “a model,” (Claim 19).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a computer system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” “providing, by the computer system and to a picker client device, a picker client application through which a picker can identify batches to fulfill for a plurality of different retail locations,” and “a model,” (Claim 1); “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions,” “a processor,” “providing, by a computer system and to a picker client device, a picker client application through which a picker can identify batches to fulfill for a plurality of different retail locations,” and “a model,” (Claim 10); “a system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” “providing, by a computer system and to a picker client device, a picker client application through which a picker can identify batches to fulfill for a plurality of different retail locations,” and “a model,” (Claim 19), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of:
“providing, by the computer system, a map of at least a portion of the zone for display within a user interface of the picker client device, wherein the map includes at least a subset of the plurality of retail locations;” “modifying the map displayed in the user interface at the picker client device to emphasize a first set of retail locations with a waiting time above a threshold value by performing a first visual adjustment to each of the retail locations in the first set within the map, wherein the modifying causes the picker client device to display the modified map,” “responsive to receiving an interaction with an interactive element associated with a selected retail location of the second set of retail locations: modifying the map displayed in the user interface to include the selected retail location;” “storing, as training data, an indication of whether the picker received a batch at the selected retail location in a shorter period of time than the waiting time…” “retraining the model with the training data,” (Claims 1, 10, and 19).
The recited additional elements of “providing, by the computer system, a map of at least a portion of the zone for display within a user interface of the picker client device, wherein the map includes at least a subset of the plurality of retail locations;” “modifying the map displayed in the user interface at the picker client device to emphasize a first set of retail locations with a waiting time above a threshold value by performing a first visual adjustment to each of the retail locations in the first set within the map, wherein the modifying causes the picker client device to display the modified map,” “responsive to receiving an interaction with an interactive element associated with a selected retail location of the second set of retail locations: modifying the map displayed in the user interface to include the selected retail location;” “storing, as training data, an indication of whether the picker received a batch at the selected retail location in a shorter period of time than the waiting time…” “retraining the model with the training data,” (Claims 1, 10, and 19), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional elements are deemed “extra-solution” because they are merely presenting data/information to a user. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Remaining dependent claims 4, 6-9, 13, and 15-18, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a computer system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” “providing, by the computer system and to a picker client device, a picker client application through which a picker can identify batches to fulfill for a plurality of different retail locations,” and “a model,” (Claim 1); “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions,” “a processor,” “providing, by a computer system and to a picker client device, a picker client application through which a picker can identify batches to fulfill for a plurality of different retail locations,” and “a model,” (Claim 10); “a system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” “providing, by a computer system and to a picker client device, a picker client application through which a picker can identify batches to fulfill for a plurality of different retail locations,” and “a model,” (Claim 19), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional elements of “providing, by the computer system, a map of at least a portion of the zone for display within a user interface of the picker client device, wherein the map includes at least a subset of the plurality of retail locations;” “modifying the map displayed in the user interface at the picker client device to emphasize a first set of retail locations with a waiting time above a threshold value by performing a first visual adjustment to each of the retail locations in the first set within the map, wherein the modifying causes the picker client device to display the modified map,” “responsive to receiving an interaction with an interactive element associated with a selected retail location of the second set of retail locations: modifying the map displayed in the user interface to include the selected retail location;” “storing, as training data, an indication of whether the picker received a batch at the selected retail location in a shorter period of time than the waiting time…” “retraining the model with the training data,” (Claims 1, 10, and 19), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of user interfaces. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(d). This conclusion is based on a factual determination.
The determination that associating/storing data in a database (e.g. “storing, as training data, an indication of whether the picker received a batch at the selected retail location in a shorter period of time than the waiting time…” “retraining the model with the training data,” (Claims 1, 10, and 19)) is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of associating/storing data in a database.
The determination that receiving data/messages over a network (e.g., “providing, by the computer system, a map of at least a portion of the zone for display within a user interface of the picker client device, wherein the map includes at least a subset of the plurality of retail locations;” “modifying the map displayed in the user interface at the picker client device to emphasize a first set of retail locations with a waiting time above a threshold value by performing a first visual adjustment to each of the retail locations in the first set within the map, wherein the modifying causes the picker client device to display the modified map,” “responsive to receiving an interaction with an interactive element associated with a selected retail location of the second set of retail locations: modifying the map displayed in the user interface to include the selected retail location;” (Claims 1, 10, and 19)) is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Remaining dependent claims 4, 6-9, 13, and 15-18, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, and 15-19, would be allowable subject matter if revised and amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Xu et al. (US 2024/0289731 A1) discloses a system to fulfill orders from users. During periods of peak demand, the system increases compensation to shoppers to encourage more to participate, thereby reducing missed orders. The system determines an optimal multiplier to increase compensation based on predictive models of supply and demand and then applying an optimization algorithm to search different hyperparameters that affect how the models generate the multipliers. The system selects the optimal multipliers for different time periods and locations. The system may further present the multipliers being offered during future time periods and enable users to activate reminder alerts for select periods. The offers may be presented in a ranked list using a model trained to infer likelihoods of the user accepting participation and/or setting a reminder notification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights