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 .
Status of Claim(s)
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17-18, and 20 were previously pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claim(s) 1, 11, 18, and 20 were amended. Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 10, 12-15, and 17 were left as previously/originally presented. Claim(s) 6, 8-9, 16, and 19 were cancelled. Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17-18, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 14-16, of Applicant’s Response, filed December 09, 2025, with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17-18, and 20, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page(s) 14-16, that the invention provides that the application is now integrated into a practical application thus sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea since the fully-autonous robot perform operations meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration. Here, in this case the specification discloses a solution to improve a time-consuming process for retailers to determine how the prices should be adjusted if this determination must be made continually (e.g., multiple times per hour, day, or week) as items are sold and restocked, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0002. This is at best an improvement to the abstract idea (e.g., pricing perishable items based on shelf life) itself rather than a technological improvement. First, the step(s) of accomplishing this desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner by merely stating retailers may adjust the prices of items in a way that considers additional factors, such as their current inventory of the items and projected demand for the items, which may further complicate this process and improve a time-consuming process for retailers to determine how the prices should be adjusted if this determination must be made continually (e.g., multiple times per hour, day, or week) as items are sold and restocked, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0002, thus when the specification states the improvement in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
While applicant provides that the invention helps solve a technical problem of improving the autonomous vehicle, see applicant’s arguments on page 15. However, applicant’s specification merely provides “…the description herein may primarily refer to pickers as humans, in some embodiments, some or all of the steps taken by the picker may be automated. For example, a semi- or fully-autonomous robot may collect items in a retailer location for an order and an autonomous vehicle may deliver an order to a user from a retailer location,” see applicant’s specification paragraph 0020. The specification merely provides the functions of the autonomous collecting and routing a conclusory manner. At best the specification provides an improvement to the abstract idea of collecting and transporting items. Also, applicant’s specification paragraph 0016, provides that “…the collection interface may present a location of each item at the retailer location, and may even specify a sequence in which the picker should collect the items for improved efficiency in collecting items….” The specification merely provides the functions of the autonomous collecting in a conclusory manner. At best the specification provides an improvement to the abstract idea of collecting the items without providing the details as to how the robot picks the items. It should be noted that merely providing a more efficient manner in collecting items is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Also, another important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP §2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely receiving, accessing, applying, updating, accessing, training, receiving, receiving, training, applying, generating, adjusting, sending, causing, and displaying, respectively, perishable item pricing information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a computer system, a processor, a computer-readable medium, an online system, a first/second machine-learning model, a network, a user interface, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer,” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when the user interface enables a picker to collect an item more efficiently, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0016, since the appending generic computer functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of presenting item information thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
Also, this case is similar to, In re Brown, where the court found cutting hair after first determining the hair style was merely insignificant application, which, is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Here, applicant is able to assign a servicing of the order to a picker after receiving an order from a user, which, is merely insignificant application a form of insignificant extra- solution activity.
Also, similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, the court provided that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. In this case, applicant’s specification paragraph 0020, provides “…the description herein may primarily refer to pickers as humans, in some embodiments, some or all of the steps taken by the picker may be automated. For example, a semi- or fully-autonomous robot may collect items in a retailer location for an order and an autonomous vehicle may deliver an order to a user from a retailer location.” This provides that collection and delivery of the items have been performed by human pickers in the past thus merely automating a manual process is not enough to show an improvement.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this case, applicant has merely claimed the result of accomplishing the problem when the applicant has merely provided upon assigning the servicing of the order instructions will be provided to the picker operating as a the semi-autonomous robot or fully-autonomous robot to collect the item in the location and deliver as set of one or more items of the order. However, the claim(s) lack the details as to how the unmanned vehicle is being controlled to collect the items from the retailer location thus merely claiming the result is equivalent to the words of “apply it.”
As the claim does not recite the specific improvement to the robotic mechanisms that perform the collection and/or routing, such limitations directed to the autonomous robot are generically recited. See, Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) “[Where t]he limitations of the . . . claims . . . do not provide sufficient additional features or limit the abstract concept in a meaningful way[,] . . . the level of detail in the specification does not transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method.” Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 recites an entity that is able to adjust a price of an item based on the freshness and the change of demand for the item(s). Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 as a whole recite limitation(s) that are directed to an abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment) and/or mathematical concepts (e.g., mathematical calculations, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical relationships).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 limitations of “receiving, a set of item data for an item included among an inventory at a retailer location, the set of item data comprising a set of real-time data for the item related to a current time period and a set of constraints,” “accessing, a first model trained to predict a freshness satisfaction score for the item, wherein the freshness satisfaction score indicates a measure of satisfaction of a user with a freshness of the item,” “applying, the first model to the set of item data to generate the freshness satisfaction score for the item for the current time period,” “updating, the set of item data for the item to include the freshness satisfaction score,” “accessing, a second model trained to predict an elasticity of demand for the item, wherein the second model is trained,” “receiving item data for a plurality of items, the item data comprising the measure of satisfaction of one or more users with the freshness of a corresponding item,” “receiving conversion data for a plurality of conversions by a plurality of users, the conversion data comprising a value associated with each item associated with a corresponding conversion,” “training, the second model based at least in part on the item data and the conversion data,” “applying, the second model to the updated set of item data and to one or more of a temperature associated with a location within the retailer location associated with the item for the current time period, a humidity associated with the location for the current time period, a light exposure associated with the location for the current time period, a department associated with the location, or a visibility of the location for the current time period to predict the elasticity of demand for the item for the current time period,” “generating, based at least in part on the freshness satisfaction score for the item, the predicted elasticity of demand for the item, and the set of constraints, an optimal value associated with the item for the current time period” “adjusting, based at least in part on the optimal value associated with the item for the current time period, a value associated with the item for the current time period,” “sending, a signal indicating the value associated with the item that is adjusted for the current time period, wherein sending the signal causes to display with the value associated with the item for the current time period,” “receiving, information about the user placing an order during the current time period, the order including the item having the value for the current time period,” “responsive to receiving the information about the order, assigning a servicing of the order to a picker,” and “upon assigning the servicing of the order, instructing, the picker to collect the item in the location and deliver a set of one or more items of the order including the item to the user,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment) and/or mathematical concepts (e.g., mathematical calculations, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical relationships).
Furthermore, as explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.). For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20, are similar to an entity determining pricing for perishable item(s) based on the item(s) demand and freshness. The system can provide a value to the user with the item. Once the system receives the users order then a picker is able to deliver the item to the user. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: a computer system, an online system, a first/second machine-learning model, a processor, a network, a computing system, a user interface, a device, fully-autonomous robot, an autonomous vehicle, and a computer-readable medium; Claim 11: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a processor, an online system, a first/second machine-learning model, a network, a computing system, a user interface, a device, a fully-autonomous robot, and an autonomous vehicle; and Claim 20: a computer system, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a first/second machine learning model, an online system, a processor, a network, a device, a user interface, and a fully-autonomous robot) do not take the claims out of the enumerated group of certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20, recites the above abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “receiving,” “accessing,” “applying,” “generating,” “updating,” “accessing,” “receiving,” “receiving,” “training,” “applying,” “generating,” “adjusting,” “sending,” “receiving,” “assigning,” “causing,” “displaying,” “collecting,” and “controlling” respectively, information in a computer environment. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: a computer system, an online system, a first/second machine-learning model, a processor, a network, a computing system, a user interface, a device, fully-autonomous robot, an autonomous vehicle, and a computer-readable medium; Claim 11: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a processor, an online system, a first/second machine-learning model, a network, a computing system, a user interface, a device, a fully-autonomous robot, and an autonomous vehicle; and Claim 20: a computer system, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a first/second machine learning model, an online system, a processor, a network, a device, a user interface, and a fully-autonomous robot). Examiner, notes that the computer system, online system, first/second machine-learning model, processor, network, computing system, user interface, device, fully-autonomous robot, autonomous vehicle, computer-readable medium, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements are merely receiving, accessing, applying, generating, updating, accessing, receiving, receiving, training, applying, generating, adjusting, sending, receiving, assigning, and displaying, item pricing information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Also, see a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer,” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when the user interface enables a picker to collect an item more efficiently, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0016, since the appending generic computer functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of presenting item information thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
Also, similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, the court provided that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. In this case, applicant provides that retailer(s) and/or farmer(s) can manually adjust the price for the perishable items, label those items, and pick the perishable items, see paragraph(s) 0008, 0020, 0024, 0062, 0080, and 0094, however, as stated above the mere automation of a process that was once manual is not enough for showing an improvement in computer-functionality.
Examiner, also, further notes the “fully-autonomous robot,” and “autonomous vehicle,” collecting and controlling, indicates a “field-of-use,” within the technological environment of providing instructions to a picker to move to provide delivery services to a user. As currently claimed, there is no improvement to the functioning of the fully-autonomous robot, and autonomous vehicle, and the instructions sent are similar to those that would be sent by an entity specifying location information to a deliverer for delivering an order.
Furthermore, like in Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the additional elements generally link instructing, respectively, fully-autonomous robot, and autonomous vehicle to a location, which, does no more than merely confine the use of the abstract idea of providing instructions to a deliverer to travel to a user location and collect items for delivery thus failing to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this case, applicant has merely claimed the result of accomplishing the problem when the applicant has merely provided upon assigning the servicing of the order instructions will be provided to the picker operating as a the semi-autonomous robot or fully-autonomous robot to collect the item in the location and deliver as set of one or more items of the order. However, the claims lack(s) the details as to how the fully-autonomous robot is able to collect the items from a retail location provided to the processor of the robot thus merely claiming the result is equivalent to the words of “apply it.” Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not practical application(s) of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 12-15, and 17: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 12-15, and 17 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim(s) 1 and 11, respectively, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 10 and 18: The additional limitation of describing “sending,” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described above for Independent Claim(s) 1 and 11, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are the computer-readable storage medium, processor, network, and computing system, respectively. Examiner, notes that the computing system, computer- readable storage medium, network, and processor, respectively, are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely sending information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “sending, information describing an optimal environment associated with the item,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. For the reasons described above with respect to Claim 18, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-5, 7, 10, 12-15, and 17-18, above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17-18, and 20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628