DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 31, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on March 31, 2026.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant first argues that the claims do not recite a judicial exception, relying on the polling function and the transfer of a query to a different computing system due to previous computer system unavailability. Applicant argues that such operations require machine-to-machine network communication. In response, note that the mere presence of computing hardware in a claim does not require a conclusion that there is no abstract idea or judicial exception recited in the claim. For example, see the 101 analysis chart in MPEP 2106(III). Note that Step 2B is a determination of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, a claim may recite both abstract and non-abstract elements, and the presence of non-abstract elements does not require a determination that there are no abstract-idea elements.
Applicant also argues here against the “mental process” category of abstract idea. However, note that Examiner’s rejections are based on the “certain method(s) of organizing human activity” category of abstract idea, and not the “mental process” category.
Applicant also argues that Applicant’s claims are analogous to claim 2 of USPTO 101 Example 37, which is indicated as eligible. Examiner disagrees, as the example claim is distinguishable from Applicant’s claims. The example claim is directed to reorganizing icons in a graphical user interface based on their corresponding amount of use. The example analysis found eligibility based upon a determination that there was no judicial exception recited. In contrast, Applicant’s claims recite an abstract idea via “certain method(s) of organizing human activity”. Applicant’s claims are directed to tracking a time period which corresponds to an ordered product that is delivered. This thus relates to commercial interactions as well as managing interactions between parties that may involve people; therefore, the claims recite “certain method(s) of organizing human activity”, and Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Applicant next argues that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application via the computing/technological improvement consideration of MPEP 2106.05(a). First, Applicant argues an improved CRM data architecture. Applicant references how data storage in Applicant’s claims is able to accurately track a time period associated with a product delivery, with the advantage that the start of the time period is more accurately tied to the start time of actual delivery. In response, this is still not a technological/computing improvement under 101. This is because the alleged improvement of more accurately tying the time period to the time of actual product delivery relates to a business process improvement and not a technological improvement. The advantage of having more accurate time periods (for example, return or warranty periods) for products is not about improving the field of computer technology, for example; it is about businesses being able to more accurately tie their sales policies to real-world events like deliveries. Note that the alleged improvement here is not about an actual computing improvement such as a faster processor design. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Applicant attempts to analogize Applicant’s claims to the Enfish decision, but the two situations are distinguishable. Enfish related to an improvement to how data is stored, with accompanying advantages. The argued data storage in Applicant’s independent claims is simply storing data relating to tracking the start and progress of a product-related time period that is based on actual delivery. It does not appear that there is a change to the nature of how data storage is occurring in Applicant’s claims; rather, particular product-related information is simply stored for purposes of tracking the related time period. Therefore, Examiner does not find an Enfish-like improvement here.
Applicant next argues based on USPTO 101 Example 42, in which a technological improvement was found from medical records being converted into a standardized format. Examiner disagrees. The eligible claim in Example 42 is distinguishable from Applicant’s claims, because there is no comparable technological-improvement feature in Applicant’s claims, to the format conversion in Example 42. Applicant’s data storage simply stores particular data content in accordance with tracked events relating to a product order and delivery. Simply storing particular data content for product event tracking purposes does not automatically comprise a technological or computing improvement. Again, the alleged improvement here appears to be simply business-process-related and not technological.
Applicant next argues that the claim’s carrier polling and failover architecture is inextricably rooted in the computing environment. Applicant references the use of computing technology to obtain the delivery information, and reasons (referencing the DDR decision) that the claims must be eligible because these computing systems could not be used in an analogous non-technological environment. However, this does not track the reasoning in DDR. In DDR, the eligibility was not found simply because the solution involved computing technology; there was also analysis about whether an analogous problem occurred outside of the technology (in that case, in a real-world physical store). From this, it was determined if the problem being addressed arose from the technology. If we follow DDR’s example, the problem Applicant is addressing is a need to more accurately tie a time period associated with a product (for example, a return period) to the actual time of delivery of the product. This problem need not be tied to a computing environment, such as e-commerce. For example, one can imagine a traditional pre-Internet mail-order catalog, with a 30-day return period for orders. It would make sense to be able to know exactly when the customer receives the order, so that the customer is not penalized if the shipping happens to take longer. Thus, an analogous problem exists outside of computing technology, and the DDR rationale would not apply here for eligibility purposes.
Applicant further argues based on the eligible claim in USPTO Example 40. Examiner disagrees. The Example 40 claim was found to have a technological or computing improvement, because it saved computing resources by reducing network traffic monitoring based on the current particular situation. While Applicant’s failover feature does allow for a more resilient data collection in the event of carrier system unavailability, note from the updated 101 rejections that this feature does not provide eligibility because it qualifies as insignificant extrasolution activity that is also well-understood, routine, and conventional. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Applicant further argues eligibility based on the specificity of Applicant’s claims. However, specificity, in and of itself, does not necessarily render eligibility to a claim reciting an abstract idea. Consider a generic computing system which merely calculates a very complex mathematical function, without more. Such a claim would typically not be eligible under 101 guidance, yet the claim would be very specific. Therefore, Examiner does not find the specificity argument to be persuasive.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more than any judicial exception due to being other than well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Examiner disagrees. This Step 2B consideration is performed with respect to the additional elements beyond the judicial exception; that is, the consideration cannot be met by meaningful contributions only from the judicial exception (abstract idea here). When we look to the additional elements in representative claim 1, for example, we see that they qualify as either “mere instructions to apply an exception” (MPEP 2106.05(f)), or “insignificant extra-solution activity” (MPEP 2106.05(g)) that is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional elements that relate to “mere instructions to apply an exception” are all generic computing elements and thus not other than well-understood, routine, and conventional, either. Therefore, we do not have meaningful contribution from the additional elements to the well-understood, routine, and conventional consideration, so Examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive. Also note that the mere absence of prior art rejections does not necessarily indicate eligibility, since these are two distinct analyses.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1, 9, and 16, Claim(s) 1, 9, and 16 recite(s):
- receive an order for a product, the product associated with a temporal period;
- communicate the order and the temporal period for the product to customer relationship management (“CRM”) in response to receiving the order, wherein communicating the order comprises creating a CRM record for the order that includes a temporal period field initialized to a null value pending delivery confirmation;
- poll a product carrier at periodic intervals by submitting a tracking number associated with the order to the product carrier to check a delivery status of the product;
- query to determine the delivery status of the product;
- receive a delivery notification for the product from the product carrier or with respect to a digital product activation event;
- begin the temporal period in customer relationship management (CRM) by updating the temporal period field in the CRM record from the null value to a begin time based on a timestamp included in the delivery notification in response to the delivery notification indicating that the product is delivered, wherein the CRM record is configured to calculate an expiration of the temporal period based on the begin time.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): relates to order, delivery, and temporal period management for a product, so encompasses commercial interactions;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages interactions between product receivers, product providers, and carriers, each of which may involve people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- an apparatus; at least one memory; at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus; electronic; logging; data storage; automatically; a computing system; a different computing system; an application programming interface (“API”); a web server interface; a digital product activation event; a system; a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor (Note that the “screen scrape of a carrier webpage” does not need to be addressed here, because other alternative options to the screen scrape are addressed.): These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “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 provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
- in response to the computing system being unavailable, automatically query a different computing system: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). MPEP 2106.05(g) states: “The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.” These particular element(s)/limitation(s) do not meaningfully limit the claim because it amounts to mere data gathering. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Examiner presents the following examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, as relevant to these particular element(s)/limitation(s):
Mere Data Gathering:
Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982).
Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012). See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis).
Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:
Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1854-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. As also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “in response to the computing system being unavailable, automatically query a different computing system” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
If an examiner previously concludes under Step 2A that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, the examiner should evaluate whether that additional element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, in step 2B. Examiner addresses below why that element was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field:
- in response to the computing system being unavailable, automatically query a different computing system: See Anand, US 20160056996 A1, paragraph [0003], which states: “Conventionally, high availability systems operate by having redundant server/nodes which are used to provide service when the intended resources within the cluster fail to perform the execution of a requested application. For example, if a process within a node of the cluster fails to execute a requested application the process remain unavailable till an administrator restarts or redirect the application to an alternate server/node in the cluster. High availability clustering automates the process of re-starting/redirecting by detecting when a process or other resource has failed on another node, without requiring administrative intervention. Such high availability clusters often play a critical role in ensuring the availability of resources such as databases, file systems, network addresses, or other resources for applications which require a high degree of dependability, such as electronic commerce websites or other business applications.” Thus, “in response to the computing system being unavailable, automatically query a different computing system” was well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- an interface (claims 5, 13, and 20);
- a digital item (claim 6);
- a click of a link to download a digital item (claim 6);
- an installation of a digital item on an electronic device (claim 6);
- an initial log-in (claim 6);
- initial execution of a digital item on an electronic device (claim 6);
- poll a computing system (claims 7 and 14).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 2 merely adds further detail to the temporal period.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Long, US 20130066748 A1 (architectural opening covering ordering method and system);
b. Ruth, US 20200387863 A1 (systems and methods of package container return);
c. Lehner, US 20160034850 A1 (system and method for shipping, delivery, manifesting, and returns).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
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, NATHAN UBER can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628