DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the Amendments filed on 03/04/2026.
Claims 3 and 12 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-20 are rejected.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 03/04/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10-11, 13, 17, and 19-20 have been amended.
Claim Objections
The claim objections from the prior Office Action have been withdrawn pursuant Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-2, 4-11, 13-20 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 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-A method, performed at a computer system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising:
-receiving a shopping list from a user client device, wherein the shopping list comprises a quantity for each of a plurality of items requested by the users;
-determining that the shopping list from the user client device includes a quantity of an item that exceeds a quantity that can be fulfilled using a single source;
-generating a plurality of segmenting options for fulfilling the request using multiple sources, wherein each of the segmenting options includes a different combination of pickers and sources that can be used to procure the plurality of items, wherein at least one of the segmenting options comprises using more than one source to procure the quantity of the item that exceeds the quantity that can be fulfilled using a single source;
-retrieving model inputs based in part on the request, wherein the model inputs include availability information for the item at various sources;
-for each of the plurality of segmenting options, applying a machine learned model to the model inputs to identify an associated cost of the segmenting option;
-transmitting instructions to the user client device to display a user interface, wherein the user interface display[ing] each of the plurality of segmenting options in a row, wherein each row for each of the plurality of segmenting options comprises an indication of a number of pickers to be used to procure the quantities of items in the shopping list, and wherein the at least one of the segmenting options is displayed with an indication of the more than one source to be used to procure the quantity of the item that exceeds the quantity that can be fulfilled using a single source;
-receiving a selection of a segmenting option through the user interface;
-fulfilling the request in accordance with the selected segmenting option, wherein the fulfilling comprises dispatching pickers to sources to procure the quantities of items in the shopping list according to the combination of pickers and sources of the selected segmenting option
The above limitations recite the concept of determining segmenting options for fulfilling the request using multiple sources and fulfilling the request in accordance with the selected segmenting option. 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 generating a plurality of segmenting options for fulfilling the request using multiple sources, wherein each of the segmenting options includes a different combination of pickers and sources that can be used to procure the plurality of items, wherein at least one of the segmenting options comprises using more than one source to procure the quantity of the item that exceeds the quantity that can be fulfilled using a single source; retrieving model inputs based in part on the request, wherein the model inputs include availability information for the item at various sources; and fulfilling the request in accordance with the selected segmenting option, wherein the fulfilling comprises dispatching pickers to sources to procure the quantities of items in the shopping list according to the combination of pickers and sources of the selected segmenting option are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. For example, “generating,” “retrieving,” and “fulfilling” in the context of this claim encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Similarly, the limitations of a method, performed at a computer system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising: receiving a shopping list from a user client device, wherein the shopping list comprises a quantity for each of a plurality of items requested by the users; determining that the shopping list from the user client device includes a quantity of an item that exceeds a quantity that can be fulfilled using a single source; for each of the plurality of segmenting options, applying a machine learned model to the model inputs to identify an associated cost of the segmenting option; transmitting instructions to the user client device to display a user interface, wherein the user interface display[ing] each of the plurality of segmenting options in a row, wherein each row for each of the plurality of segmenting options comprises an indication of a number of pickers to be used to procure the quantities of items in the shopping list, and wherein the at least one of the segmenting options is displayed with an indication of the more than one source to be used to procure the quantity of the item that exceeds the quantity that can be fulfilled using a single source; and receiving a selection of a segmenting option through the user interface are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the system is a computer system, that the system comprises a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium, that the user is a user client device, that the model is a machine learned model, that the displaying is by transmitting instructions to the user client device to display a user interface, and that the receiving of a selection is through the user interface, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “a computer system,” “a processor,” “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “a user client device,” “a machine learned model,” “transmitting instructions to the user client device to display a user interface,” and “the user interface” language, “receiving,” “determining,” “applying,” “display,” and “receiving” 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).
-A method, performed at a computer system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising:
-receiving a shopping list from a user client device, wherein the shopping list comprises a quantity for each of a plurality of items requested by the users;
-determining that the shopping list from the user client device includes a quantity of an item that exceeds a quantity that can be fulfilled using a single source;
-generating a plurality of segmenting options for fulfilling the request using multiple sources, wherein each of the segmenting options includes a different combination of pickers and sources that can be used to procure the plurality of items, wherein at least one of the segmenting options comprises using more than one source to procure the quantity of the item that exceeds the quantity that can be fulfilled using a single source;
-retrieving model inputs based in part on the request, wherein the model inputs include availability information for the item at various sources;
-for each of the plurality of segmenting options, applying a machine learned model to the model inputs to identify an associated cost of the segmenting option;
-transmitting instructions to the user client device to display a user interface, wherein the user interface displays each of the plurality of segmenting options in a row, wherein each row for each of the plurality of segmenting options comprises an indication of a number of pickers to be used to procure the quantities of items in the shopping list, and wherein the at least one of the segmenting options is displayed with an indication of the more than one source to be used to procure the quantity of the item that exceeds the quantity that can be fulfilled using a single source;
-receiving a selection of a segmenting option through the user interface;
-fulfilling the request in accordance with the selected segmenting option, wherein the fulfilling comprises dispatching pickers to sources to procure the quantities of items in the shopping list according to the combination of pickers and sources of the selected segmenting option
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 1 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 [0091] of Applicant’s specification – “a software module is implemented with a computer program product comprising one or more computer-readable media storing computer program code or instructions, which can be executed by a computer processor for performing any or all of the steps, operations, or processes described. In some embodiments, a computer-readable medium comprises one or more computer-readable media that, individually or together, comprise instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform, individually or together, the steps of the instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable media. Similarly, a processor comprises one or more processors or processing units that, individually or together, perform the steps of instructions stored on a computer-readable medium.” Specifically, the additional elements of a computer system, a processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a user client device, a machine learned model, transmitting instructions to the user client device to display a user interface, and the user interface are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of receiving data, determining data, generating data, retrieving data, applying data, transmitting data, receiving data, and fulfilling a request) 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 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 9 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.
Claim 10 is a computer program product reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 10 recites the additional elements of a computer program product, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a processor, a computer system, a user client device, a machine learned model, transmitting instructions to the user client device to display a user interface, and the user interface, however, claim 10 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Claim 19 is a computer system reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 19 recites the additional elements of a computer system, a processor, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a user client device, a machine learned model, transmitting instructions to the user client device to display a user interface, and the user interface, however, claim 19 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 19 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2, 4-9, 11, 13-18, and 20, 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 2, 4-9, 11, 13-18, and 20 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 2, 7-9, and 16-18 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 4-6, 11, 13-15, and 20 recite the user client device, the machine learned model, the computer system, the computer program product, the computer readable storage medium, the user interface, and the processor, 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 2, 4-9, 11, 13-18, and 20 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2, 4-9, 11, 13-18, and 20 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 10, and 19, dependent claims 2, 4-9, 11, 13-18, and 20 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. determining segmenting options for fulfilling the request using multiple sources and fulfilling the request in accordance with the selected segmenting option) 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 amount 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 1-2, 4-11, 13-20 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 1-2, 4-11, 13-20 are allowable over the prior art as follows:
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-20 are allowable over 35 U.S.C. §103 as follows:
The most relevant prior art made of record includes Tepfenhart et al. (US 2017/0024804 A1), Scalabrino et al. (US 11,853,957 B1), newly cited Kim et al. (US 2021/0174291 A1), and newly cited Kibbey et al. (US 2020/0097900 A1). Tepfenhart teaches receiving a shopping list from a user client device, wherein the shopping list comprises a quantity for each of a plurality of items requested by the users (Tepfenhart, see at least: [0032] and [0014]); determining that the shopping list from the user client device includes a quantity of an item that exceeds a quantity that can be fulfilled using a single source (Tepfenhart, see at least: [0039] see also [0038]); generating a plurality of segmenting options for fulfilling the request using multiple sources, wherein each of the segmenting options includes a different combination of pickers and sources that can be used to procure the plurality of items (Tepfenhart, see at least: [0036] and [0037]); retrieving model inputs based in part on the request, wherein the model inputs include availability information for the item at various sources (Tepfenhart, see at least: [0036]); for each of the plurality of segmenting options, applying a model to the model inputs to identify an associated cost of the segmenting option (Tepfenhart, see at least: [0036]); transmitting instructions to the user client device to display a user interface, wherein the user interface displays each of the plurality of segmenting options in a row (Tepfenhart, see at least: Fig. 1); receiving a selection of a segmenting option through the user interface (Tepfenhart, see at least: [0033]); fulfilling the request in accordance with the selected segmenting option, wherein the fulfilling comprises utilizing pickers to sources to procure the quantities of items in the shopping list according to the combination of pickers and sources of the selected segmenting option (Tepfenhart, see at least: [0063] and [0036]).
Tepfenhart is deficient in a number of ways. As written, the claims require wherein at least one of the segmenting options comprises using more than one source to procure the quantity of the item that exceeds the quantity that can be fulfilled using a single source; applying a machine learned model to the model inputs to identify an associated cost of the segmenting option; wherein each row for each of the plurality of segmenting options comprises an indication of a number of pickers to be used to procure the quantities of items in the shopping list, and wherein the at least one of the segmenting options is displayed with an indication of the more than one source to be used to procure the quantity of the item that exceeds the quantity that can be fulfilled using a single source; fulfilling the request in accordance with the selected segmenting option, wherein the fulfilling comprises dispatching pickers to sources.
Regarding Scalabrino, Scalabrino teaches applying a machine learned model to the model inputs to identify an associated cost of the segmenting option (Scalabrino, see at least: Col. 15 Ln. 67 & Col. 16 Ln. 1-4); the fulfilling comprising dispatching pickers to sources to pickers to sources to procure the quantities of items in the shopping list according to the combination of pickers and sources of the selected segmenting option (Scalabrino, see at least: Col. 5 Ln. 30-34 and Col. 11 Ln. 30-49).
Though disclosing these features, Scalabrino does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Regarding Kim, Kim teaches at least one of the segmenting options comprises using more than one source to procure the quantity of the item that exceeds the quantity that can be fulfilled using a single source (Kim, see at least: [0091]); an indication of the more than one source to be used to procure the quantity of the item that exceeds the quantity that can be fulfilled using a single (Kim, see at least: [0091]).
Though disclosing these features, Kim does not disclose or render obvious wherein each row for each of the plurality of segmenting options comprises an indication of a number of pickers to be used to procure the quantities of items in the shopping list, and wherein the at least one of the segmenting options is displayed with an indication of the more than one source to be used to procure the quantity of the item that exceeds the quantity that can be fulfilled using a single source.
Regarding Kibbey, Kibbey teaches each row for each of the plurality of segmenting options comprises an indication of a picker to be used to procure the quantities of items in the shopping list (Kibbey, see at least: Fig. 19).
Though disclosing these features, Kibbey does not disclose or render obvious wherein each row for each of the plurality of segmenting options comprises an indication of a number of pickers to be used to procure the quantities of items in the shopping list, and wherein the at least one of the segmenting options is displayed with an indication of the more than one source to be used to procure the quantity of the item that exceeds the quantity that can be fulfilled using a single source.
Ultimately, the particular combination of limitations as claimed in dependent claims 6 and 15, is not anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of Tepfenhart, Scalabrino, Kim, and Kibbey, 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.
Tepfenhart, Scalabrino, Kim, and Kibbey, 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 J.-Y. Shiau (reference U cited 11/01/2025 and 03/21/2026 in PTO-892) teaches using a mathematic programming decision model to minimize the remaining space of mailing boxes and the picking path of each order in a warehouse, but does not teach or suggest the recited claims.
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 The claimed invention recites an improvement to the technical field of user interface technology by enabling the presentation of integrated, order-level fulfillment strategies in a structured visual format that allows a user to quickly compare different logistical approaches to servicing an entire shopping list. Rather than merely presenting item-level options, the invention generates multiple segmenting options covering the whole order, including picker and source combinations for fulfilling all requested quantities, and presents these options in different rows of a user interface with clear indicators, such as when more than one source is needed to satisfy the quantity of a single item. This structured, comparative display improves the way users interact with fulfillment options, making it easier to evaluate trade-offs such as cost and logistics at the order level (Remarks, pages 14-15).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reciting that the data is presented as multiple segmenting options covering the whole order, including picker and source combinations for fulfilling all requested quantities, and presenting these options in different rows of a user interface with clear indicators, such as when more than one source is needed to satisfy the quantity of a single item does not recite any technical features as to how the data is displayed (e.g. embedding data, compressing data etc.). Organizing data displayed in an interface does nit improve the interface technology itself. Additionally, allowing a user to quickly compare different logistical approaches to servicing an entire shopping list and improving the way users interact with fulfillment options, making it easier to evaluate trade-offs such as cost and logistics at the order level are not technological improvements, rather, they are business improvements. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application and are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Irshad et. al (US 2023/0394424 A1) teaches efficiently allocating retail space, refrigeration/freezer equipment, parking spots, staff, and other related resources to meet online pick-up ordering demand.
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 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