DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecutorial Standing
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicants’ election with traverse of Group 1: claims 1-22 in the reply filed on 11.11.2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the communications server apparatus is an integral part of the communications system in Group 2 for its operation and are not separate inventions that can simply be disintegrated. The claims are thus not patentably distinct because the system cannot function without the server apparatus.” This is not found persuasive because the claims are related as sub-combinations as usable together in a single combination.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
3. Claim 23 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11.11.2025.
Therefore, claims 1-22 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
4. The Applicants’ oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant' s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) dated 03.13.2024 is acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority / Filing Date
6. Applicant’s claim for priority of the PCT/SG2022/050539 filed on 07.28.2021 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the PCT date of 07.28.2021 into consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
9. Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 recite the term “minimise”. The term appears to be a typographical error. However, the intended meaning is unclear from the claim language. As written, the term renders the scope of the claim uncertain.
Accordingly, claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 fail to particularly point and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-22 are directed to “communications server apparatus for managing orders.”
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites limitations that fall within one or more of the abstract idea groupings, including managing orders by:
receiving order data indicative of a scheduled order associated with a user;
generating batch data indicative of an order batch and at least one unbatched order;
generating data indicative of a quality indicator for the order batch;
determining whether a batching efficiency condition is satisfied based on the quality indicator; and
releasing data indicative of a release of the order batch for allocation to a delivery agent.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations describe collecting information, evaluating the information using defined criteria, and taking action based on the evaluation to allocate orders for delivery. Such subject matter falls within the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity as defined in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. In particular, the claims recited:
commercial interactions, including managing orders and deliveries; and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including allocating order batches to delivery agents based on defined efficiency criteria.
The claim is therefore directed to the abstract idea of organizing and optimizing order batching and delivery allocation using decision rules, which is a form of commercial and logistical activity that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Further, evidence is cited to: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Electric Power Group v. Alston, and Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: a “communications” server apparatus, a processor, and a memory. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality and function as generic computer components (e.g., receiving data, generating records, applying conditions, and transmitting data) such that it amounts no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality, and do not improve the functioning of a computer, do not provide a particular machine configuration, and do not define a particular technical mechanism for managing orders. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. For example, the limitations relating to a “quality indicator” and a “batching efficiency condition” are recited at a functional level without specifying any technological mechanism or improvement. These limitations merely define decision criteria for carrying out the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional, comprise: receiving order data, generating batch data, and releasing batches to aid in performing the aforementioned steps and thus amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (managing orders) does not render the claim patent eligible. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim does not amount to provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, and does not integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional elements constitute routine data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the claim does not include an inventive concept and therefore is not patent eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-22, further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11. In addition, they recite additional limitations of receive, extract, perform, and providing. The limitations of generate, recycle, determine, transmit, and compare are recited at a high-level of generality such that that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. These claims are not patent eligible.
Additionally, the dependent claims do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, claims 1-22 are not patent-eligible, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS). To address this rejection, the examiner suggests reviewing the recent Federal Circuit Court decisions and USPTO guidelines related to U.S.C. 101 for guidance on what is considered statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. The factual inquiries 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.
13. Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajkhowa, Patent No.: US 11,783,403 in view of Zhang, Pub., No.: US 2025/0371490.
As per claim 1, Rajkhowa discloses a communications server apparatus for managing orders, comprising a processor and a memory, the communications server apparatus being configured [as illustrated in FIG. 1 (e.g., a delivery management system 100 that includes a delivery management computing device 102 (e.g., a server, such as an application server)) and FIG. 2 (e.g., delivery management computing device 200) can include one or more processors 201, working memory 202), and presented below]:
PNG
media_image1.png
416
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
524
357
media_image2.png
Greyscale
under control of the processor to execute instructions stored in the memory to: in response to receiving order data indicative of a scheduled order associated with a user [as illustrated in FIG. 4A (a scheduled delivery of a batch order), and presented below]:
PNG
media_image3.png
413
563
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the order data comprising an item data field indicative of at least one item and a time data field indicative of a delivery time defined by the user for delivery of the scheduled order to the user [see at least the abstract (e.g. a delivery time window)], and in a batching cycle, generate, in one or more data records, batch data indicative of an order batch comprising the scheduled order and at least one unbatched order [as illustrated in FIG. 6A (e.g., batching of orders) and FIG. 6B (e.g., un-batching of an order)];
PNG
media_image4.png
431
580
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
565
322
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Rajkhowa discloses all elements per claimed invention as explained above. Rajkhowa does not explicitly disclose quality data indicative of a quality indicator for the order batch; and if a batching efficiency condition is satisfied based on the quality indicator, release data indicative of a release of the order batch for allocation of the order batch to a delivery agent for the scheduled order to be delivered by the delivery agent to the user at the delivery time. However, Zhang discloses quality data indicative of a quality indicator for the order batch [see at least ¶0059 (e.g., price indicator)]; and if a batching efficiency condition is satisfied based on the quality indicator, release data indicative of a release of the order batch for allocation of the order batch to a delivery agent for the scheduled order to be delivered by the delivery agent to the user at the delivery time [see at least ¶0087 (e.g., a delivery agent will deliver the order to the user such that the user is physically present to receive the order from the delivery agent when the delivery agent arrives at the delivery location at the delivery time to deliver the order)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Zhang in order to provide an indication of a selection by the user of an “attended” delivery option where the user is physically present to receive the order from the picker at the delivery location at a delivery time for the order or an “unattended” delivery option where the user is not physically present at the delivery location to receive the order from the picker at the delivery time [Zhang: ¶0015].
As per claim 2, Rajkhowa discloses configured to generate allocation data indicative of the allocation of the order batch to the delivery agent [see at least ¶0035 (e.g., an indication that the delivery vehicle 120 is enroute to deliver the first order. In some examples, the communication includes an estimated arrival time for the first order (e.g., a tracking email))].
As per claim 3, Rajkhowa discloses wherein, if the batching efficiency condition is not satisfied based on the quality indicator, the communications server apparatus is configured to: recycle the scheduled order, wherein the scheduled order that is recycled is to be subjected to an additional batching cycle [see at least ¶0055 (e.g., Delivery management computing device 102 may determine how many additional orders may be batched for delivery by delivery vehicle 120 within the scheduled time slot)].
As per claim 4, Rajkhowa discloses wherein, for generating the quality data, the communications server apparatus is configured to: generate first indicator data indicative of an urgency indicator for the order batch; and generate second indicator data indicative of an efficiency indicator for the order batch [refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 4 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 4. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 5, Rajkhowa discloses determine, based on the urgency indicator, a set of efficiency parameter thresholds; and compare the efficiency indicator with the efficiency parameter thresholds, wherein the batching efficiency condition is satisfied if the efficiency indicator satisfies the efficiency parameter thresholds [refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 5 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 5. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 6, Rajkhowa discloses wherein the set of efficiency parameter thresholds are variable depending on the urgency indicator [refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 6 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 6. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 7, Rajkhowa discloses subject the scheduled order to a plurality of batching cycles until the batching efficiency condition is satisfied [refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 7 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 7. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 8, Rajkhowa discloses wherein the scheduled order is to be fulfilled by a merchant, the communications server apparatus being further configured to: generate preparation data indicative of a preparation time duration that is required by the merchant to prepare at least one item, the preparation time duration being determined based on the order data received [refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 8 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 8. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claims 9 and 10, Rajkhowa discloses generate merchant data indicative of order information corresponding to the scheduled order; and transmit the merchant data at a time determined based on the preparation time duration and the delivery time to a communications device associated with the merchant to notify the merchant of the scheduled order for preparation of the at least one item to minimise at least one of an idle time duration, prior to pick-up by the delivery agent, of the at least one item that is prepared, or a handling time duration between the pick-up and delivery of the at least one item by the delivery agent [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claims 1-8 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claims 1-8. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
14. Claims 11-22, which are parallel to claims 1-10 in terms of scope,
limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined
above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and
underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 1-10. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-10].
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 forms have been reviewed and considered by the Examiner.
US 10,789,558, Waldeck: discloses a method for operating a self-service shopping system.
US 11,372,426, Shih: discloses a checkout system and checkout method for a retail environment.
US 10,467,579, Reiss: discloses a self-service kiosk inventory control.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627