DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 30 April 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 30 April 2024, has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites interactive user interface the shopper computing device, which appears to be a typographical error, and should be recited as interactive user interface of the shopper computing device. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-11 are directed to a method, claims 12-19 are directed to a system, and claim 20 is directed to a product of manufacture (non-transitory computer readable media).
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of providing a subset of items to display for a shopper. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
accessing data comprising a plurality of order requests, wherein each order request of a centralized list of order requests comprises a plurality of data objects, each data object being indicative of an item;
creating, based on a first order request of the centralized list of order requests and merchant location data, a shopping list comprising: (i) the plurality of data objects for items to be retrieved for the first order and (ii) characteristic data for each respective item;
storing the shopping list and a plurality of other additional shopping lists data, the shopping list data accessible to a plurality of shoppers;
accessing data indicative of selection of the first shopping list by a first shopper of the plurality of shoppers;
automatically updating, based on accessing the data indicative of the selection of the first shopping list, the shipping list data to include order status data;
accessing data indicative of selection of the first shopping list by a second shopper of the plurality of shoppers;
based on accessing data indicative of selection of the first shopping list by the fir and the second shoppers, creating a first subset of items for the first shopper and a second subset of items for the second shopper based on (i) features associated with the first shopper, (ii) features associated with the second shopper, and (iii) the characteristic data of each respective item of a plurality of items; and
transmitting data comprising instructions, to provide the first subset of items for display.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of providing a subset of items for display for a shopper, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claim specifically recites steps involved with providing a shopper with a subset of items for display, where the steps include activities of accessing data of a plurality of order requests where the orders include items, based on the requests, creating a shopping list that includes data objects for items and characteristic data for each item, storing the shopping lists that is accessible by a plurality of shoppers, updating the shopping list data to include order status of the shopping list, accessing data indicative of selection of the first shopping list by a shopper, creating a first subset of items for the shopper and a second shopper based on features associated with the first shopper and the second shopper and item characteristic data, and transmitting the first subset of items for display to the shopper, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: a centralized data structure, computing, computed, data store, computing devices, a first computing device, computing devices, data store, a second computing device, computing devices, the first computing device and the second computing device, computing, first computing device, second computing device, first computing device, second computing device, executed by the first computing device, cause an interactive user interface of the first computer device, and via the interactive user interface of the first computing device.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., providing a subset of items to display for a shopper) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claim recites the step transmitting data comprising instructions, that, when executed by the first computing device, cause an interactive user interface of the first computing device to provide the first subset of items for display via the interactive user interface of the first computing device, which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity can be understood as activities that are incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In this case, the activity of transmitting data to the first computing device is merely nominal or tangential additions to the primary process of abstract idea, such as providing a subset of items to display for a shopper.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, the step transmitting data comprising instructions, that, when executed by the first computing device, cause an interactive user interface of the first computing device to provide the first subset of items for display via the interactive user interface of the first computing device, does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception because they are merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry of data management and processing. The courts have recognized the computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a generic manner or as insignificantly extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network (e.g., using the Internet to gather data) and storing and retrieving information in memory are recognized computer functions that are considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). This is similar to the steps and additional elements that are recited in the claims. For example, the step of transmitting data that includes a first subset of items for display via the interface of the computing device, would be the same as the activity of transmitting and retrieving data over a network in this case. For examples of court cases, see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claims 12 and 20 are similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 12 includes the additional elements of 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, and independent claim 20 includes the additional element of one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to perform operations. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the additional elements recited in claims 12 and 20, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 12 and 20 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 12 and 20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 12 and 20, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claims 12 and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19, depending from claims 1 and 12 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the representative independent claim 1 nor independent claims 12 and 20. The claims of 2-11 and 13-19 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional elements of the interactive user interface of the second computing device (claims 2, 3, & 6). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the interactive user interface of the second computing device, as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 2-3 and 6 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 2-3 and 6, considered individually and in combination with other claimed features, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 4-5, 7-11, and 13-19 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 8-9, 12-13, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan, S., et al. (PGP No. US 2022/0405828 A1), in view of Macaisa, M., et al. (PGP No. US 2013/0117151 A1).
Claim 1-
Brosnan discloses a computer-implemented method, including:
accessing data comprising a centralized data structure comprising a plurality of order requests, wherein each order request of a centralized list of order requests comprises a plurality of data objects, each data object being indicative of an item (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0027] disclosing “shared shopping list database 300 that includes the products listed on each of the shopping lists” and “For example, the shared shopping list database 315 includes…shopping list SL1 that includes products P1-P12…to be purchased [i.e. requests]”);
computing, based on a first order request of the centralized list of order requests and merchant location data, a shopping list comprising: (i) the plurality of data objects for items to be retrieved for the first order and (ii) characteristic data for each respective item (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0028] disclosing “product parameters” and “products included on the shared shopping list SL1 [i.e., to be retrieved]” and “include…the product at the retail location” and “physical attribute” and “list of ingredients in the product” and “a category in which the product is included” and “the system 300 may provide parameters and characteristics”);
storing the computed shopping list and a plurality of other additional shopping lists in a shopping list data store, the shopping list data store accessible to a plurality of shopper computing devices; (Brosnan, see: and see paragraph [0027] disclosing “shared shopping list database 300 that includes the products listed on each of the shopping lists” and “shared shopping list database…includes an instantiation of shopping list SL1 and are to be purchased by the shoppers S1-S4”; and paragraph [0028] disclosing “products included on the shared shopping list SL1”; Also see: FIG. 3);
accessing data indicative of selection of the first shopping list by a first computing device of the plurality of shopper computing devices (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0015] describing the plurality of shoppers S1-S4 are registered with the system by using their mobile devices where they can access the app for the shared shopping lists.; and see: paragraph [0021] disclosing “assigning products on the shared shopping list to respective shoppers sub-lists for selection during shopping”; Also see FIG. 5);
automatically updating, based on accessing the data indicative of the selection of the first shopping list, the shopping list data store to include order status data (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0021] disclosing “provided dynamically by the shoppers upon arrival at the retail location 100” and “the system determines that each of the plurality of shoppers S1-S4 is participating in the collaborative shopping list received” and “based on an affirmative response from each of the shoppers”);
accessing data indicative of selection of the first shopping list by a second computing device of the plurality of shopper computing devices (Brosnan, paragraph [0021] disclosing “assigning products on the shared shopping list to respective shoppers sub-lists for selection during shopping” and “the system determines that each of the plurality of shoppers S1-S4 is participating in the collaborative shopping list received”; Also see FIG. 5) (Examiner’s note: It is interpreted that the plurality of shoppers that collaborate with the shopping list is the same as a second computing device, as the reference describes up to four shopper devices that can collaborate.);
based on accessing data indicative of selection of the first shopping list by the first computing device and the second computing device, computing a first subset of items for the first computing device and a second subset of items for the second computing device (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0024] disclosing “system may generate a score for each of the shoppers” and “system can determine a respective sub-list for each of the shoppers to retrieve during the shared shopping trip” and paragraph [0025] disclosing “assign products P1-P2 on the shared shopping list”; Also see: FIG. 5, el. 510) based on (i) features associated with the first computing device (Brosnan, paragraph [0025] disclosing “based on characteristics of the shoppers and parameters” and paragraph [0030] disclosing “shopper S1 [i.e., first computing device] is assigned to retrieve products P4-P6”), (ii) features associated with the second computing device (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0030] disclosing “products to assign to the shoppers” and “create the respective sub-list for each of the shoppers” and “ shopper S2 [i.e., second computing device] is assigned to retrieve products P1-P3”), and (iii) the characteristic data of each respective item of a plurality of items (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0023] disclosing “parameters for each product can include, for example, location of the product” and “a list of ingredients in the product, and a category”, and see: paragraph [0038]); and
transmitting data comprising instructions, that, when executed by the first computing device, cause the first computing device to provide the first subset of items for display via the first computing device (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0020] disclosing “a respective sub-list may be provided to each of the shoppers S1-S4 which is tailored to suit their shopping capability given the particular products on the list”; and paragraph [0030] disclosing “the respective sub-list for each of the shoppers S1-S4” and “shopper S1 is assigned to retrieve products P4-P6, shopper S2 is assigned to retrieve products P1-P3”; Also see: FIG. 3 rendering the system assigning the products for each shopper and provided as a sub-list to the shopper device, and FIG. 5 rendering each shopper associated with their own device which provides the sub-lists according to characteristics of the shopper device and the products.).
Although Brosnan does describe a shopper device that is associated with each shopper, as seen in FIG. 5 and described in paragraph [0037], Brosnan does not explicitly detail the computing devices of the shoppers, such as having interactive user interfaces. Brosnan does not disclose:
an interactive user interface of the computing device;
the interactive user interface of the computing device;
Macaisa, however, does teach:
an interactive user interface of the computing device (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0091] teaching “display of the communication device 2625, and suitable user interface (UI) elements to permit a ser to interact with the e-commerce platform”);
the interactive user interface of the computing device (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0091] teaching “display of the communication device 2625, and suitable user interface (UI) elements to permit a ser to interact with the e-commerce platform”).
This step of Macaisa, is applicable to the method of Brosnan, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to creating lists for items that can be shared with other users. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brosnan, to include the features of an interactive user interface of the computing device, as taught by Macaisa. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Brosnan, to improve communications between devices of users shopping for a single list of items that has been created (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0033]).
Claim 2-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as described above.
Brosnan discloses comprising:
transmitting data comprising instructions, that, when executed by the second computing device, cause the second computing device to provide the second subset of the second computing device (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0030] disclosing “the respective sub-list for each of the shoppers S1-S4” and “shopper S2 is assigned to retrieve products P1-P3”; Also see: FIG. 3 rendering the system assigning the products for each shopper and provided as a sub-list to the shopper device, and FIG. 5 rendering each shopper associated with their own device which provides the sub-lists according to characteristics of the shopper device and the products.).
Brosnan does not disclose:
the interactive user interface;
display via the user interface of the computing device;
Macaisa, however, does teach:
the interactive user interface (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0091] teaching “display of the communication device 2625, and suitable user interface (UI) elements to permit a ser to interact with the e-commerce platform”);
display via the user interface of the computing device (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0091] teaching “display of the communication device 2625, and suitable user interface (UI) elements to permit a ser to interact with the e-commerce platform”).
This step of Macaisa, is applicable to the method of Brosnan, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to creating lists for items that can be shared with other users. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brosnan, to include the features of an interactive user interface of the computing device and display via the user interface of the computing device, as taught by Macaisa. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Brosnan, to improve communications between devices of users shopping for a single list of items that has been created (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0033]).
Claim 3-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as described above.
Although Brosnan does disclose a first computing device, a second computing device, the first subset of the first shopping list and the second subset of the first shopping list (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0020] disclosing ‘a respective sub-list may be provided to each of the shoppers S1-S4 which is tailored to suit their shopping capability given the particular products on the list”; and paragraph [0030] disclosing “the respective sub-list for each of the shoppers S1-S4” and “shopper S1 is assigned to retrieve products P4-P6, shopper S2 is assigned to retrieve products P1-P3”; Also see: FIG. 3 rendering the system assigning the products for each shopper and provided as a sub-list to the shopper device, and FIG. 5 rendering each shopper associated with their own device.), Brosnan does not disclose a progress metric for either of the computing devices that would be indicative of an amount of completion of the shopping lists, nor does Brosnan disclose the interactive user interface. Brosnan does not disclose:
computing a first progress metric and a second progress metric, the first progress metric indicative of an amount of completion of the first subset of the shopping list and the second progress metric indicative of an amount of completion of the first shopping list; and
based on the first progress metric and the second progress metric, periodically transmitting instructions, that when executed, cause at least one of: (i) the interactive user interface of the first computing device or (ii) the interactive user interface of the second computing device to be updated.
Macaisa, however, does teach:
computing a first progress metric and a second progress metric, the first progress metric indicative of an amount of completion of the first subset of the shopping list and the second progress metric indicative of an amount of completion of the first shopping list (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0074] teaching “registry overview web page 1000 includes a number of items to be selected indication 1010, a number of items already selected indication 1020, and a number of item remaining to be select indication 1030, which display the progress of the registrant/co-registrant in selecting products/items for listing and/or display in their gift registry”); and
based on the first progress metric and the second progress metric, periodically transmitting instructions, that when executed, cause at least one of: (i) the interactive user interface of the first computing device or (ii) the interactive user interface of the second computing device to be updated (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0072] teaching “to manage sharing and access by the people involved”; and see: paragraph [0074] teaching “registry overview web page 1000 includes a number of items to be selected indication 1010, a number of items already selected indication 1020, and a number of item remaining to be select indication 1030, which display the progress of the registrant/co-registrant in selecting products/items for listing and/or display in their gift registry” and “displays current information about actions of those involved”).
This step of Macaisa, is applicable to the method of Brosnan, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to creating lists for items that can be shared with other users. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brosnan, to include the features of computing a first progress metric and a second progress metric, the first progress metric indicative of an amount of completion of the first subset of the shopping list and the second progress metric indicative of an amount of completion of the first shopping list, and based on the first progress metric and the second progress metric, periodically transmitting instructions, that when executed, cause at least one of: (i) the interactive user interface of the first computing device or (ii) the interactive user interface of the second computing device to be updated, as taught by Macaisa. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Brosnan, to improve communications between devices of users shopping for a single list of items that has been created (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0033]).
Claim 4-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computer-implemented method of claim 3, as described above.
Brosnan discloses:
wherein periodically transmitting instructions, that when executed, cause the first computing device and the second computing device to be updated (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0021] disclosing “provided dynamically by the shoppers upon arrival at the retail location 100” and “the system determines that each of the plurality of shoppers S1-S4 is participating in the collaborative shopping list received”) comprises:
accessing current location data indicative of a real-time location of the first computing device and a real-time location of the second computing device within the merchant location (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0021] disclosing “provided dynamically by the shoppers upon arrival at the retail location 100” and “the system determines that each of the plurality of shoppers S1-S4 is participating in the collaborative shopping list received”);
based on (i) the current location data, dynamically adjusting a distribution of items between the first subset of items and the second subset of items (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0020] disclosing “the shopper characteristics of the shoppers S1-S4 with the parameters for the products included on the shared shopping list to assign particular ones of the products P1-P12 for retrieval by the particular ones shoppers S1-S4”); and
based on dynamically adjusting the distribution of items, automatically transmitting instructions which cause the user associated with the first computing device to provide for display an updated first subset of items and the user associated with the second computing system to provide for display an updated second subset of items (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0021] disclosing “the presence of the shoppers S1-S4 or alternatively is provided dynamically by the shoppers upon arrival at the retail location 100”; and paragraph [0025] disclosing “system 300 configured to assign products P1-P12 on the shared shopping list 315 to the respective shopper sub-lists 335 based on characteristics of the shoppers and parameters of the products on the shared shopping list 315”).
Brosnan does not disclose:
the interactive user interface of the computing device;
(ii) the first progress metric;
(iii) the second progress metric;
Macaisa, however, does teach:
the interactive user interface of the computing device (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0091] teaching “display of the communication device 2625, and suitable user interface (UI) elements to permit a ser to interact with the e-commerce platform”);
(ii) the first progress metric (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0074] teaching “registry overview web page 1000 includes a number of items to be selected indication 1010, a number of items already selected indication 1020 [i.e., first progress metric], and a number of item remaining to be select indication 1030, which display the progress of the registrant/co-registrant in selecting products/items for listing and/or display in their gift registry” and “displays current information about actions of those involved”);
(iii) the second progress metric (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0074] teaching “registry overview web page 1000 includes a number of items to be selected indication 1010, a number of items already selected indication 1020, and a number of item remaining to be select indication 1030 [i.e., second progress metric], which display the progress of the registrant/co-registrant in selecting products/items for listing and/or display in their gift registry” and “displays current information about actions of those involved”).
This step of Macaisa, is applicable to the method of Brosnan, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to creating lists for items that can be shared with other users. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brosnan, to include the features of the interactive user interface of the computing device, (ii) the first progress metric, and (iii) the second progress metric, as taught by Macaisa. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Brosnan, to improve communications between devices of users shopping for a single list of items that has been created (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0033]).
Claim 5-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computer-implemented method of claim 4, as described above.
Brosnan discloses:
wherein dynamically adjusting the distribution of items between the first subset of items and the second subset of items comprises the second subset of items (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0025] disclosing “system 300 configured to assign products P1-P12 on the shared shopping list 315 to the respective shopper sub-lists 335 based on characteristics of the shoppers and parameters of the products on the shared shopping list 315”; Also see: Claim 11 disclosing “assigning distributes the plurality of products to the plurality of shoppers” and “for each shopper to retrieve products of an assigned sub-group” and “providing an indication of the respective sub-groups to the plurality of shoppers”).
Brosnan does not disclose:
removing one or more items from the items and adding the one or more removed items to the items;
Macaisa, however, does teach:
removing one or more items from the items and adding the one or more removed items to the items (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0101] teaching “allow the registrant/co-registrant(s), or others to add or delete items/products from the gift registry”).
This step of Macaisa, is applicable to the method of Brosnan, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to creating lists for items that can be shared with other users. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brosnan, to include the features of removing one or more items from the items and adding the one or more removed items to the items, as taught by Macaisa. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Brosnan, to improve communications between devices of users shopping for a single list of items that has been created (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0033]).
Claim 8-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as described above.
Brosnan discloses:
wherein computing the first subset of items for the first computing device and the second subset of items for the second computing device (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0020] disclosing “the shopper characteristics of the shoppers S1-S4 with the parameters for the products included on the shared shopping list to assign particular ones of the products P1-P12 for retrieval by the particular ones shoppers S1-S4”) comprising:
Brosnan does not disclose:
based on the percent completion of the first shopping list exceeding a predefined range, updating the order status data to indicate that the order cannot be selected by a second computing device.
determining a percent completion of the first shopping list; and
Macaisa, however, does teach:
based on the percent completion of the first shopping list exceeding a predefined range, updating the order status data to indicate that the order cannot be selected by a second computing device (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0074] teaching “a number of items already selected indication 1020, and a number of item remaining to be select indication 1030, which display the progress of the registrant/co-registrant in selecting products/items for listing” and “web page 1000 includes a pie chart 1040 that shows a breakdown of the number of items/products now listed in their gift registry”)..
determining a percent completion of the first shopping list (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0074] teaching “a number of items already selected indication 1020, and a number of item remaining to be select indication 1030, which display the progress of the registrant/co-registrant in selecting products/items for listing” and “web page 1000 includes a pie chart 1040 that shows a breakdown of the number of items/products now listed in their gift registry”).
Claim 9-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as described above.
Brosnan discloses:
wherein the features associated with the first computing device and the features associated with the second computing device comprise historical performance of an operator associated with the respective device or experience level of the operator associated with the respective device (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0024] disclosing “generate a score for each of the shoppers to pick the particular product on the list” and “determine which shopper should be assigned to pick the particular product”).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to a system. Claim 12 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. Claim 12 also includes the features of 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, the operations, disclosed by Brosnan (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0042] disclosing “a computer program product on a tangible computer readable storage medium having computer program code embodied in the medium that can be executed by a computer”). Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim 13-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computing system of claim 12, as described above.
Brosnan discloses:
wherein the characteristic data of each respective data object of the plurality of data objects for items comprises at least one of: (i) an item type, (ii) an item location, or (iii) an item category (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0028] disclosing “the location of the product at the retail location, a physical attribute (such as weight, bulkiness, etc.), a list of ingredients in the product, and a category in which the product is included”).
Claim 16-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computing system of claim 12, as described above.
Brosnan discloses:
wherein computing first subset of items and the second subset of items is performed responsive to accessing data indicative of the first computing device indicating a need for assistance (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0022] disclosing “the shopper characteristics of can include a mobility characteristic or rating that defines the relative mobility of the respective shopper (block 215)” and “the shopper may need the assistance” and “indicates a rating of how capable the shopper is in reaching and retrieving products that are stored on a higher shelf such or on a lower shelf”).
Claim 19-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computing system of claim 12, as described above.
Brosnan discloses comprising:
based on obtaining a request for the computed shopping list and the plurality of other additional shopping lists, transmitting data comprising instructions, that, when executed by a shopper computing device, cause presentation of the shopping list and the plurality of other additional shopping lists via the shopper computing device (Brosnan, see: FIG. 2 rendering the system where the sub-lists of items are provided to each of the respective shoppers, and FIG. 3 rendering each list that is provided to the shopper.).
Brosnan does not disclose:
shopping lists via an interactive user interface;
Macaisa, however, does teach:
shopping lists via an interactive user interface Macaisa, see: paragraph [0091] teaching “display of the communication device 2625, and suitable user interface (UI) elements to permit a ser to interact with the e-commerce platform”).
This step of Macaisa, is applicable to the method of Brosnan, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to creating lists for items that can be shared with other users. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brosnan, to include the features of an interactive user interface of the computing device, as taught by Macaisa. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Brosnan, to improve communications between devices of users shopping for a single list of items that has been created (Macaisa, see: paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable media. Claim 20 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. Claim 20 also includes the features of one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to perform operations (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0042] disclosing “a computer program product on a tangible computer readable storage medium having computer program code embodied in the medium that can be executed by a computer”). Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claims 6-7, 10-11, 15-17, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan, S., et al. (PGP No. US 2022/0405828 A1), in view of Macaisa, M., et al. (PGP No. US 2013/0117151 A1), and Schack, S., et al. (Patent No. US 11,783,400 B1).
Claim 6-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computer-implemented method of claim 4, as described above.
Brosnan discloses the method comprising:
determining an item is needed for a first item of the first subset of items (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0025] disclosing “based on characteristics of the shoppers and parameters” and paragraph [0030] disclosing “shopper S1 [i.e., first computing device] is assigned to retrieve products P4-P6”);
based on a location of an item and the current location data (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0019] disclosing “products P1-P12 are placed in various locations within the store layout 100” and “the parameters associated with each of those products P1-P12 can also be accessed” and “the associated parameters of the products can include, for example, the location of the products within the retail location 100, the shelf height at which the products are placed, the ingredients in the product, the physical attributes of the product”), and
transmitting data comprising instructions that, when executed by the second computing device, of the second computing device to provide the second subset of items for display of the second computing device (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0020] disclosing “can then combine the shopper characteristics of the shoppers S1-S4 with the parameters for the products included on the shared shopping list to assign particular ones of the products P1-P12 for retrieval by the particular ones shoppers S1-S4”).
Brosnan does not disclose:
determining a replacement item is needed;
a recommended replacement item;
updating the items to include the replacement item;
cause the interactive user interface of the device to prove the updated items for display via the interactive user interface;
Schack, however, does teach:
determining a replacement item is needed (Schack, see: Col. 21-22, ln. 66-67 & 1-2 teaching “interface engine 328 also may generate augmented reality elements that recommend items included among an inventory of a warehouse 150 detected within a display area of a client device 110” and ln. 14-16 teaching “if an item in a shopping list is out of stock, an augmented reality element may include a brand of the replacement item”);
a recommended replacement item (Schack, see: Col. 21-22, ln. 66-67 & 1-2 teaching “interface engine 328 also may generate augmented reality elements that recommend items included among an inventory of a warehouse 150 detected within a display area of a client device 110” and ln. 14-16 teaching “if an item in a shopping list is out of stock, an augmented reality element may include a brand of the replacement item”);
updating the items to include the replacement item (Schack, see: Col. 23, ln. 13- teaching “a list of one or more items included among an inventory of a warehouse 150, the augmented reality element may be updated” and “may update the augmented reality element if an item is unavailable, if an item is collected, if a replacement item is identified, etc.” and “interface engine 328 may update the augmented reality element so that it includes the replacement item and a note indicating it is a replacement item”);
cause the interactive user interface of the device to prove the updated items for display via the interactive user interface (Schack, see: Col. 23, ln. 13-36 teaching “a list of one or more items included among an inventory of a warehouse 150, the augmented reality element may be updated” and “may update the augmented reality element if an item is unavailable, if an item is collected, if a replacement item is identified, etc.” and “interface engine 328 may update the augmented reality element so that it includes the replacement item and a note indicating it is a replacement item”).
It is noted that both references of Schack and Macaisa teach the feature of an interactive user interface. However, Schack explains further that the interface is updated according to a replacement item.
This step of Schack is applicable to the method of Brosnan, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to shopping with a shopping list of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brosnan, to include the features of determining a replacement item is needed; a recommended replacement item; updating the items to include the replacement item; and cause the interactive user interface of the device to prove the updated items for display via the interactive user interface, as taught by Schack. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Brosnan, to improve the way a user navigates in a shopping environment with a shopping list of items in mind (Schack, see: Col. 2).
Claim 7-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa, and Schack teach the computer-implemented method of claim 6, as described above.
Brosnan does not disclose:
wherein the location of the recommended replacement item and the real-time location of the second computing device are within a predefined threshold.
Schack, however, does teach:
wherein the location of the recommended replacement item and the real-time location of the second computing device are within a predefined threshold (Schack, see: Col. 18, ln. 8-10 teaching “may modify a route based on a location within a warehouse 150 associated with a replacement item”; and see: Col. 23, ln. 17-22 “if a replacement item is identified, etc. For example, if the interface engine 328 generates an augmented reality element that includes a shopping list, as each item in the shopping list is collected, the interface engine 328 may update the augmented reality element”).
This step of Schack is applicable to the method of Brosnan, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to shopping with a shopping list of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brosnan, to include the features of wherein the location of the recommended replacement item and the real-time location of the second computing device are within a predefined threshold, as taught by Schack. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Brosnan, to improve the way a user navigates in a shopping environment with a shopping list of items in mind (Schack, see: Col. 2).
Claim 10-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computer-implemented method of claim 9, as described above.
Brosnan discloses an aggregation of metrics (Brosnan, paragraph [0024]), however, Brosnan does not disclose:
wherein the historical performance of the operator comprises associated with past order fulfillment instance, the metrics comprising at least one of: (i) an order replacement satisfaction rate, (ii) a shop time, or (ii) a wait time for a courier picking up the order.
Schack does teach:
wherein the historical performance of the operator comprises associated with past order fulfillment instance, the metrics comprising at least one of: (i) an order replacement satisfaction rate, (ii) a shop time, or (ii) a wait time for a courier picking up the order (Schack, see: Col. 9, ln. 62-64 teaching “the shopper management engine 310 accesses a shopper database 312 which stores information describing each shopper 208, such as his/her name, gender, rating, previous shopping history, etc.”; and see: Col. 14, ln. 18-20 teaching “the training datasets 320 may also include a rate at which an item is typically found [i.e., a shop time] by a shopper 208 at a warehouse 150”).
This step of Schack is applicable to the method of Brosnan, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to shopping with a shopping list of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brosnan, to include the features of wherein the historical performance of the operator comprises associated with past order fulfillment instance, the metrics comprising at least one of: (i) an order replacement satisfaction rate, (ii) a shop time, or (ii) a wait time for a courier picking up the order, as taught by Schack. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Brosnan, to improve the way a user navigates in a shopping environment with a shopping list of items in mind (Schack, see: Col. 2).
Claim 11-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computer-implemented method of claim 9, as described above.
Brosnan does not disclose:
wherein the experience level of the operator is determined based on at least one of: (i) a number of previously completed orders or (ii) characteristics of previously completed orders.
Schack, however, does teach:
wherein the experience level of the operator is determined based on at least one of: (i) a number of previously completed orders or (ii) characteristics of previously completed orders (Schack, see: Col. 9, ln. 62-64 teaching “the shopper management engine 310 accesses a shopper database 312 which stores information describing each shopper 208, such as his/her name, gender, rating, previous shopping history, etc.”; and see: Col. 14, ln. 18-20 teaching “the training datasets 320 may also include a rate at which an item is typically found [i.e., a shop time] by a shopper 208 at a warehouse 150”).
This step of Schack is applicable to the method of Brosnan, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to shopping with a shopping list of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brosnan, to include the features of wherein the experience level of the operator is determined based on at least one of: (i) a number of previously completed orders or (ii) characteristics of previously completed orders, as taught by Schack. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Brosnan, to improve the way a user navigates in a shopping environment with a shopping list of items in mind (Schack, see: Col. 2)..
Claim 14-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computing system of claim 13, as described above.
Brosnan does not disclose:
wherein the item type comprises at least one of: (i) frozen, (ii) perishable, (iii) non-perishable, (iv) non-edible, (v) refrigerated, or (vi) shelf stable.
Schack, however, does teach:
wherein the item type comprises at least one of: (i) frozen, (ii) perishable, (iii) non-perishable, (iv) non-edible, (v) refrigerated, or (vi) shelf stable (Schack, see: Col. 15, ln. 31-36 teaching “describe departments and/or physical elements within the warehouse 150, such as organizational elements, including aisles, shelves within the aisles, various display areas (e.g., frozen or refrigerated display cases, display tables, and sample and promotional displays), etc.”).
This step of Schack is applicable to the method of Brosnan, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to shopping with a shopping list of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brosnan, to include the features of wherein the item type comprises at least one of: (i) frozen, (ii) perishable, (iii) non-perishable, (iv) non-edible, (v) refrigerated, or (vi) shelf stable, as taught by Schack. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Brosnan, to improve the way a user navigates in a shopping environment with a shopping list of items in mind (Schack, see: Col. 2)..
Claim 15-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computing system of claim 13, as described above.
Although Brosnan discloses the item category (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0028] disclosing “the location of the product at the retail location, a physical attribute (such as weight, bulkiness, etc.), a list of ingredients in the product, and a category in which the product is included”), Brosnan does not disclose:
wherein the item category comprises an indication of at least one of: (i) produce, (ii) canned goods, (iii) outside aisle, (iv) pharmacy, (v) bakery, (vi) snacks, (vii) beverages, or (viii) frozen goods.
Schack, however, does teach:
wherein the item category comprises an indication of at least one of: (i) produce, (ii) canned goods, (iii) outside aisle, (iv) pharmacy, (v) bakery, (vi) snacks, (vii) beverages, or (viii) frozen goods (Schack, see: Col. 15, ln. 31-36 teaching “describe departments and/or physical elements within the warehouse 150, such as organizational elements, including aisles, shelves within the aisles, various display areas (e.g., frozen or refrigerated display cases, display tables, and sample and promotional displays), etc.”).
This step of Schack is applicable to the method of Brosnan, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to shopping with a shopping list of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brosnan, to include the features of wherein the item category comprises an indication of at least one of: (i) produce, (ii) canned goods, (iii) outside aisle, (iv) pharmacy, (v) bakery, (vi) snacks, (vii) beverages, or (viii) frozen goods, as taught by Schack. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Brosnan, to improve the way a user navigates in a shopping environment with a shopping list of items in mind (Schack, see: Col. 2)..
Claim 17-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computing system of claim 12, as described above.
Brosnan does not disclose:
wherein the order status comprises unclaimed, claimed and not begun, in progress, nearly done, or completed.
Schack, however, does teach:
wherein the order status comprises unclaimed, claimed and not begun, in progress, nearly done, or completed (Schack, see: Col. 10, ln. 49-58 teaching “Information describing an order/purchase included” and “the order/purchase was fulfilled/completed,…or any other information that may be associated with an order/purchase.”).
This step of Schack is applicable to the method of Brosnan, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to shopping with a shopping list of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brosnan, to include the features of wherein the order status comprises unclaimed, claimed and not begun, in progress, nearly done, or completed, as taught by Schack. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Brosnan, to improve the way a user navigates in a shopping environment with a shopping list of items in mind (Schack, see: Col. 2)..
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan, S., et al. (PGP No. US 2022/0405828 A1), in view of Macaisa, M., et al. (PGP No. US 2013/0117151 A1), and Deshpande, A., et al. (PGP No. US 2015/0120514 A1).
Claim 18-
Brosnan in view of Macaisa teach the computing system of claim 12, as described above.
Brosnan does not disclose:
wherein computing the first subset of items and the second subset of items is performed responsive to determining that a courier associated with picking up the first shopping list will arrive before the first computing device completes the shopping list.
Deshpande, however, does teach:
wherein computing the first subset of items and the second subset of items is performed responsive to determining that a courier associated with picking up the first shopping list will arrive before the first computing device completes the shopping list (Deshpande, see: paragraph [0027] teaching “a retail shopper has pulled an item from the shelf before a picker arrives”).
This step of Deshpande is applicable to the system of Brosnan as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing lists of items to be shopped. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Brosnan to include the feature of wherein computing the first subset of items and the second subset of items is performed responsive to determining that a courier associated with picking up the first shopping list will arrive before the first computing device completes the shopping list, as taught by Deshpande. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Brosnan, to improve logistical schedules for picking orders fulfilled by shoppers (Deshpande, see: paragraph [0014]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DeStefano, H., et al. (PGP No. US 2016/0117754 A1), describes a wish list system that includes an application on a user device permitting a wish list creator to review and select one or more items for inclusion in an electronic wish list, and can share the wish list with others.
Non-patent literature (NPL), document titled Out of Milk found on the outofmilk.com website (2012), renders and describes a website for users to create a shopping list that is also shareable with other users of the application, with features of utilizing historical purchases for lists, barcodes scanner, etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights