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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 11/21/2025, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 21-40 are pending in the application.
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 21-40 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.
Claim 21 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 21 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction, including advertising activities/behaviors, business relations, sales activities, which represents a method of organizing human activity and has been identified as an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106. The relevant claimed limitations include: the interest indicators comprising identifiers for resources offered by the second service providers, and maximum and minimum amounts associated with the resources of the second service providers / receiving a fulfillment request, the fulfillment request being for one or more resources to be fulfilled by a first service provider / identifying one or more transporters that are capable of satisfying the fulfillment request / retrieving candidate interest indicators from the stored interest indicators
Based on the second service providers that are geographically proximate to the first service provider / determining one or more candidate interest indicators from the retrieved interest indicators / retrieving the candidate interest indicators /providing one or more communications associated with the determined one or more candidate interest indicators associated with one or more of the second service providers along with a display of a service provider identifier associated with the first service provider or the one or more resources to be fulfilled by the first service provider / the one or more transporters satisfy the fulfillment request by delivering the one or more resources of the first service provider and the one or more resources of the one or more second service providers to the end user. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “the user can order resources from a service provider via an application server. The resources can then be delivered to the end user”, “a system for displaying relevant cross-service provider…communications…at a pre-checkout or checkout page on an application on an end user device operated by a user…can be described in the context of users ordering food from a food service delivery application…the communication with the food item offered by the second service provider can be selected …and the purchase of that food item can be added to the list of food items from the first service provider on a checkout page”, “the purchase of the food items from the first and second service providers can be done without substantially increasing the overall delivery time to the end user “, “The communications may be in the form of advertisements for the resources offered by the one or more second service providers that were previously retrieved. The advertisements may be displayed along with a list of resources on a check out page of the first service provider.”, “may store data regarding the resources (e.g., data regarding resources such as food to be offered for sale, descriptions of the resources, image data of images of the resources, service provider identifiers, dates of service provider or resource availability, prices of resources, etc.) of all services providers interacting with the central server computer 10.” The claim also recites the abstract concept of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which represents a method of organizing human activity and has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: the one or more transporters satisfy the fulfillment request by delivering the one or more resources of the first service provider and the one or more resources of the one or more second service providers to the end user. The claim also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – I.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: identifying one or more transporters that are capable of satisfying the fulfillment request / determining one or more candidate interest indicators from the retrieved interest indicators. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 21 includes the additional elements of a short term and long term database/server/ end user device comprising an application, and storing data. The databases/server/user device represent generic computing elements. Storing data represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing element represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional element of storing data represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 21 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 35, 40 are directed to a server and system, respectively, for performing the method of claim 21, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion; they recite the same abstract idea as Claim 21. Claims 35, 40 perform the method of claim 21 using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 35, 40 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 21.
Remaining dependent claims 22-34, 36-39 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further recite the additional elements of mobile devices, which represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional element of transporters operating vehicles does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/ field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the additional elements above, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Prior Art Analysis
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims
21-40. The most relevant prior art of record identified, Gilman (20180253682), teaches a pre-processing and fulfillment process of mixed orders, including receiving an order containing a retail component and a pharmacy component, processing the order for the pharmacy component and the retail component, and generating a tracking token identifying the order and authorizing a party to receive a component of the order. The method may include transmitting fulfillment instructions to a fulfillment system based on processed information for the order, and transmitting the tracking token to a computing device of the authorized party. Some implementations may also include receiving a signal indicating receipt of the tracking token and an authorized transfer of the component, and updating a status of the order based on the received signal. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. Urbanski (20110238477) teaches connecting consumers with one or more product or service providers , including establishing one or more profiles from one or more product or service providers, establishing one or more profiles from one or more consumers, receiving a consumer's subject matter request, matching the consumer with one or more products or service providers based on at least one of the consumer's profile and subject matter request, and providing the consumer's contact information to the matched one or more products or service providers. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. When taken as a whole, the pending independent claims and thus their respective dependent claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
The claimed invention is not merely a fundamental economic practice, mental process, or method of organizing human activity as categorized by the 2019 PEG. Rather the claims are directed to a specific technological solution to a problem in resource fulfillment systems: efficiently presenting and delivering complementary resources from multiple service providers coordinated by a central server and logistics platform. These elements are not abstract in the sense of being “mental processes, “nor do they simply organize human activity. They are rooted in technological improvements in logistics, data management, and resource delivery, and require specific computing infrastructure and data handling as described in the specification. Claim 21 does not merely recite generic computer implementation of an abstract idea. The recited system is architected to achieve real time data handling and improve the functioning of resource fulfilment platforms: rapidly retrieves and ranks interest indicators using improved indexing and data structures / coordinates multiple entities through networked computing devices / reduces delivery latency by leveraging geographic proximity calculations and transporter logistics / enhances user experience by enabling simultaneous ordering from multiple service providers in a single transaction, thus solving a technical problem recognized in the field.
As noted above, the pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “the user can order resources from a service provider via an application server. The resources can then be delivered to the end user”, “a system for displaying relevant cross-service provider…communications…at a pre-checkout or checkout page on an application on an end user device operated by a user…can be described in the context of users ordering food from a food service delivery application…the communication with the food item offered by the second service provider can be selected …and the purchase of that food item can be added to the list of food items from the first service provider on a checkout page”, “the purchase of the food items from the first and second service providers can be done without substantially increasing the overall delivery time to the end user “, “The communications may be in the form of advertisements for the resources offered by the one or more second service providers that were previously retrieved. The advertisements may be displayed along with a list of resources on a check out page of the first service provider.”, “may store data regarding the resources (e.g., data regarding resources such as food to be offered for sale, descriptions of the resources, image data of images of the resources, service provider identifiers, dates of service provider or resource availability, prices of resources, etc.) of all services providers interacting with the central server computer 10.” Providing targeted communications to users, allowing users to make delivery purchases, and fulfilling delivery requests to the users, represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec. that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101.
The pending claimed invention is similar to Bascom, and thus is directed to patent eligible subject matter
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claimed invention and Bascom have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Bascom, the Courts concluded that the claim limitation takes as an “ordered combination” under step two are an inventive concept, sufficient for patent eligibility under 35 USC 101. When considered as an ordered combination, the Federal Circuit concluded the claims provided "an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." Id. Because of the ordered combination elements, the claims in Bascom were considered to improve the functionality of the computer, and thus amounted to significantly more under step two of the Alice analysis.
Contrary to Bascom, the instant claimed invention, when implemented, does not improve the functionality of the computer nor does it improve a technology/technical field. The present claims recite an abstract idea using additional elements that are generic computing components as discussed supra, or at best, improving an abstract idea - not an inventive concept. There is no technical evidence/technical support in the Applicant's Specification of technical improvements or of a technical solution to a technical problem. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101.
The claims provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the sum of any alleged judicial exception and generic computer implementation. The Office Action acknowledges that the prior art does not teach or suggest the combination of claimed elements. The technological improvements articulated by the specification include:
-The use of short-term and long-term databases for real-time and persistent storage of
interest indicators;
- Geographic proximity filtering and dynamic transporter identification to optimize
resource delivery;
-Ranking and selection algorithms for interest indicators based on contextual relevance,
user preferences, and logistics;
- Coordinated fulfillment involving multiple service providers and transporters, resulting
in a single, streamlined transaction for the user.
These features, taken together, amount to "significantly more" than the identified abstract idea, and are specifically recited and supported by the specification. The claims do not simply automate a manual process but solve a technical problem in resource delivery and logistics platforms, as recognized in recent Federal Circuit decisions such as McRO, Inc.
As noted above, the pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “the user can order resources from a service provider via an application server. The resources can then be delivered to the end user”, “a system for displaying relevant cross-service provider…communications…at a pre-checkout or checkout page on an application on an end user device operated by a user…can be described in the context of users ordering food from a food service delivery application…the communication with the food item offered by the second service provider can be selected …and the purchase of that food item can be added to the list of food items from the first service provider on a checkout page”, “the purchase of the food items from the first and second service providers can be done without substantially increasing the overall delivery time to the end user “, “The communications may be in the form of advertisements for the resources offered by the one or more second service providers that were previously retrieved. The advertisements may be displayed along with a list of resources on a check out page of the first service provider.”, “may store data regarding the resources (e.g., data regarding resources such as food to be offered for sale, descriptions of the resources, image data of images of the resources, service provider identifiers, dates of service provider or resource availability, prices of resources, etc.) of all services providers interacting with the central server computer 10.” Providing targeted communications to users, allowing users to make delivery purchases, and fulfilling delivery requests to the users, represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec. that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. The instant claimed invention and McRO have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in McRO the Courts concluded that the claimed invention was not directed to an abstract idea under prong one of Alice. The Court concluded the subject claims did not recite an abstract idea because the computer animation improved the prior art through the use of rules, rather than artists, to set morph weights and transitions between phonemes. Id. at 1308. Thus, the claimed invention in McRO allowed for computer performance of animation steps that previously had to be performed by human animators. Id. at 1313. Notably, the Court in McRO determined that the process required by the claims was not a process previously used by human animators. Id. at 1314. Therefore, the claims in McRO used "limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result" over "existing, manual 3-D animation techniques." Id. at 1316. Contrary to McRO, the instant claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea - see the detailed 35 USC 101 analysis above- and the claims do not recite a computer-automated process that uses rules for animators unlike those previously employed by humans or a similar type of improvement. Rather, the present claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea as discussed supra). Examiner notes that the prior art and 35 USC 101 analysis represent two distinct and separate analyses; as per MPEP 2106: “even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions” and “judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent”. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
11/25/2025