DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a FINAL office action in response to the Applicant’s response filed 2 February 2026.
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 February 2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 7 of their response, “Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 8-13 and 15-20 are similarly rejection. Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections. As amended, each independent claim is directed to a concrete, technological process that leverages telecommunications radio-access network (RAN) infrastructure (e.g., eNodeB/gNodeB/base stations) and physical external sensor systems (e.g., inventory sensors, cameras, parking-spot sensors/logistics) to identify the physical location of an item and provide machine-executable navigation. This is not an abstract "business practice" or "mental process." Rather, the claims recite a specific network/sensor orchestration that cannot be performed in the human mind and integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, the Examiner notes that the Applicant has merely alleged that the claims have been amended to not recite an abstract idea in a singular argument, however it is noted that each claim set (i.e. claims 1-7, 8-14, and 15-20) were rejected separately, as the claim sets encompass different elements. Thus, the general thrust that the claims have been amended, without specifically identifying why each claim set would not recite an abstract idea, is deemed not persuasive. Second, with regards to the argument that the claims recite a “technological process that leverages telecommunications radio-access network (RAN) infrastructure (e.g., eNodeB/gNodeB/base stations) and physical external sensor systems (e.g., inventory sensors, cameras, parking-spot sensors/logistics) to identify the physical location of an item and provide machine-executable navigation,” and that, “is not an abstract ‘business practice’ or ‘mental process,’” the Examiner is not persuaded. In particular to claim 1, the Applicant has amended the claim to state, “one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive an indication of a trigger event associated with an item; communicate a request to a plurality of telecommunications radio access network nodes to identify, via integration with one or more external sensor systems, a location of the item associated with the trigger event; and provide a navigational route to the location of the item associated with the trigger event.” (Emphasis added). As shown here, the claim, as emphasized, encompasses receiving an indication of a trigger event; communicating a request to a plurality of nodes to identify a location of an item associated with the trigger event; and providing a navigational route to the location of the item associated with the trigger event; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses elements that can be performed in the human mind, managing commercial interactions (sales activities, business relations), and managing human behavior. With regards to the amended elements of communicating with, a plurality of telecommunications radio access network nodes,” and using “one or more external sensor systems,” the Examiner notes that these are deemed additional elements; specifically, these elements are deemed generic computer and machine elements, that are used to carry out the abstract idea. As such, these additional elements are not considered under step 2A prong one of the Alice/Mayo test, which is directed towards determining whether the claims recite an abstract idea. As the Applicant has failed to rebut the specific claim elements that the Examiner rejected as reciting the abstract idea, and instead argued solely additional elements as not reciting an abstract idea, the Examiner is not persuaded to error, as their argument is not reflective of the specific previous and current rejection. The Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 8 of their response, “Even if the Office were to abstract the claim as an ‘idea’ the claim integrates any such idea into a practical application that: (i) interfaces with a particular machine/technology: a plurality of telecommunications RAN nodes (eNodeB/gNodeB/base stations), as defined in the specification, (ii) improves a technological process: item-location determination is performed via external sensor integration (inventory sensors, cameras, parking-spot sensors/logistics) under network control, enabling network-orchestrated, sensor-validated pickup routing that traditional app-only navigation cannot achieve, and (iii) applies the concept to a real-world, physical task: the output is a navigational route to a physical location where the item exists, and the system can validate arrival via cameras/parking sensors; this is a tangible, real-world control flow.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claims, “interfaces with a particular machine/technology: a plurality of telecommunications RAN nodes (eNodeB/gNodeB/base stations), as defined in the specification,” the Examiner is not persuaded. As noted above, the claims recite, “communicate a request to a plurality of telecommunications radio access network nodes.” These “telecommunications radio access network nodes” are not specially defined in the specification or in the claim in a manner that would render them a particular machine. Notably, paragraph 12, “As used herein, the term “node” is used to refer to network access technology for the provision of wireless telecommunication services from a base station to one or more electronic devices, such as an eNodeB, gNodeB, etc.” Notably, this definition merely recites that the node is “network access technology,” that provides “wireless telecommunication services” between a “base station” and “electronic devices.” Notably, the Applicant’s specification provides as an open-ended example eNodeB and gNodeB, however these are not exclusive. The Applicant’s specification further states in paragraphs 17-20:
“By way of background, a traditional telecommunications network employs a plurality of base stations (i.e., cell sites, cell towers) to provide network coverage. The base stations are employed to broadcast and transmit transmissions to user devices of the telecommunications network. An access point may be considered to be a portion of a base station that may comprise an antenna, a radio, and/or a controller.
As employed herein, a UE (also referenced herein as a user device) or WCD can include any device employed by an end-user to communicate with a wireless telecommunications network. A UE can include a mobile device, a mobile broadband adapter, or any other communications device employed to communicate with the wireless telecommunications network. A UE, as one of ordinary skill in the art may appreciate, generally includes one or more antenna coupled to a radio for exchanging (e.g., transmitting and receiving) transmissions with a nearby base station.
In conventional cellular communications technology, a 5G telecommunications network comprises a 5G Core Network (5GC) and a gNB. The 5GC architecture, as known to those in the art, relies on a Service-Based Architecture (SBA) framework where the architecture elements are defined in terms of Network Functions (NF) rather than by traditional network entities. Using interfaces of a common framework, any NF can offer its services to other NFs that are permitted to make use of their functions. At times, the network interfaces can experience complete failures, degradations, and the like. This compromises the ability of other NFs to obtain necessary data to establish reliable sessions for UEs.
The present disclosure is directed to intelligent routing. A telecommunications network can manage and track any nodes on the network including user equipment (UEs), base stations, and any other devices connected to the network (e.g., computers, laptops, tablets, store logistics systems, etc.). The present disclosure utilizes information from the network and external sources (e.g., store inventory) to track items in order to provide real-time navigational routing to locations (e.g., brick and mortar locations/stores) for item pickup/retrieval. The system can provide prompts to a user to remind them of an item to retrieve and can further communicate instructions for retrieval to autonomous systems (e.g., autonomous vehicles) such that the items can be retrieved without manual retrieval by a user.” (Emphasis added).
As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant has disclosed the use of conventional telecommunications networks to transmit and receive information to and from a generic user device and external sources. The Applicant’s specification has failed to specifically and particularly define the telecommunication networks in any way other than generically referencing it, and as such, the claims do not recite the use of particular machines. It is noted that MPEP 2106.05(b) states:
“The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). One example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine is Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923).
It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions). If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” (Emphasis added).
As shown and emphasized here, the MPEP sets forth that the particularity in which a machine is defined in the claims is considered when determining whether the claim recites a particular machine that integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application. It is further noted, as shown and emphasized here, that merely appending the use of generic computer elements to carry out the abstract idea, is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the Applicant’s assertions regarding the particularity of “telecommunications RAN nodes” is insufficient to integration the abstract idea into a practical application. Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument that the claims “improves a technological process: item-location determination is performed via external sensor integration (inventory sensors, cameras, parking-spot sensors/logistics) under network control, enabling network-orchestrated, sensor-validated pickup routing that traditional app-only navigation cannot achieve,” the Examiner is not persuaded. With regards to this argument, it is noted that MPEP 2106.05(a) states:
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide 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. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.” (Emphasis added).
As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant’s specification must set forth and describe the argued improvement in a manner that one of ordinary skill would recognize it; and if this is not the case, the Examiner is to find that the claims do not provide an improvement. It is also noted that, as shown and emphasized here the claims must be evaluated to determine that they reflect the identified improvement. In this case, the Applicant’s argument’s have failed to identify any improvement in computer functionality, another technology, or technical field that is set forth and described in the specification, nor have they provided any evidence as such in their arguments themselves. Additionally, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claims improve item-location determination via external sensor integration under network control, the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, claim 1 recites, “communicate a request to a plurality of telecommunications radio access network nodes to identify, via integration with one or more external sensor systems, a location of the item associated with the trigger event; and provide a navigational route to the location of the item associated with the trigger event.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the claims recite a user requesting the location of an item associated with a trigger, and providing a navigational route to the item location; which as noted above and in the previous rejection, is the abstract idea. With regards, to the use of “external sensors,” it is noted that these are merely the generic computer sensors being used to collect information. Additionally, it is noted that the Applicant has not provided any particular manner with how item locations are determined, how this process is improved, or how this is a technology which can be improved, and not part of the abstract idea. Notably, MPEP 2106..05(a)(II) states, “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” In this case, determining the location of requested items, and providing a route to said items, is deemed the abstract idea, and not another technology to be improved upon. Thus, the Examiner is not persuaded the claims provide an improvement. Third, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claims apply, “the concept to a real-world, physical task: the output is a navigational route to a physical location where the item exists, and the system can validate arrival via cameras/parking sensors; this is a tangible, real-world control flow,” the Examiner is not persuaded. Notably, applying an abstract idea to a physical task is not a reasoning in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) or 2106.05 for showing that a recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Additionally, it is noted that outputting a navigational route, is merely providing output to a user, and is not a physical task itself (i.e. displaying results on a screen is not a physical task in the “real-world”). Additionally, it is noted that the claims do not recite any element with regards to “validating the arrival via cameras/parking sensors,” and as such, this would be beyond the scope of the claims, and would be irrelevant to determining whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 8 of their response, “Even assuming arguendo that claims 1, 8, and 15 involve an abstract idea, the combination of (i) RAN-node querying (eNodeB/gNodeB/base stations) with (ii) external sensor integration for physical item-location, and (iii) machine-executable routing is not ‘well-understood, routine, and conventional.’ The specification describes this as a telecom-managed orchestration: the manager 106 works with base station 102 and retailer sensor systems to identify item location and validate arrival (e.g., camera confirming a vehicle in pickup spot 11). This is far beyond a generic computer performing sales reminders or simple GPS routing.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument regarding “RAN-node querying (eNodeB/gNodeB/base stations),” and “validate arrival (e.g., camera confirming a vehicle in pickup spot 11),” it is noted that these are not elements recited in the claims, and as such, are not relevant to determining if the claims recite additional elements, taken individually and in combination with the abstract idea, that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument that “the combination of (i) RAN-node querying (eNodeB/gNodeB/base stations) with (ii) external sensor integration for physical item-location, and (iii) machine-executable routing is not ‘well-understood, routine, and conventional,’” the Examiner notes that the previous rejection did not state this was the case. Instead, the Examiner notes that the current rejection (based on the Applicant’s argued amended elements) recites the use of generic computer elements (telecommunications radio access nodes, and sensor systems) as tools to carry out the abstract idea does not add significantly more to the abstract idea itself. In this case, merely invoking the use of a telecommunications radio access node to transmit and receive data, and the use of sensors to collect information, are deemed merely a recitation of “apply it.” Notably, MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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. 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). Similarly, "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).” (Emphasis added). The Applicant has failed to provide an explanation as to why the argued generic computer elements add significantly more to the abstract idea, and are not merely being used as tools to carry out the abstract idea. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 with regards to communicating a request using telecommunications radio access network nodes to identify, via integration of external sensors systems, a location have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive an indication of a trigger event associated with an item; communicate a request to a plurality of telecommunications radio access network nodes to identify, via integration with one or more external sensor systems, a location of the item associated with the trigger event; and provide a navigational route to the location of the item associated with the trigger event.
The limitations of receiving an indication of a trigger event; communicating a request to a plurality of nodes to identify a location of an item associated with the trigger event; and providing a navigational route to the location of the item associated with the trigger event; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses elements that can be performed in the human mind, managing commercial interactions (sales activities, business relations), and managing human behavior. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements (processors, computer readable media, telecommunications radio access network nodes, external sensor systems), the claims recite an abstract idea. In this case, receiving an indication of a trigger event, communicating a request to a plurality of nodes to identify a location of an item associated with the trigger event, and providing a navigational route to the location of the item associated with the trigger event; encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. In addition, the claims recite receiving an indication of a trigger event, communicating a request to a plurality of nodes to identify a location of an item associated with the trigger event, and providing a navigational route to the location of the item associated with the trigger event; which encompass managing commercial activity including managing sales activities by receiving an indication of an interest or sale of an item and receiving determining where the item is available. Additionally, identifying a location of an item and providing navigational instructions to the item, encompasses managing human relationships and behavior, as well as managing business relations between a buyer and seller. Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (processors, computer readable media, telecommunications radio access network nodes, external sensor systems) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, 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 of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps 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. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-7, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite the trigger event being a purchase, which further recites managing commercial activity, and thus falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea (claim 2). In addition, the claims further recite the event is an online action and a period of time, which encompasses managing commercial activity (sales activities and business relations) between a customer/potential customer and a seller, and thus falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea (claim 3). In addition, the claims further recite prompting for confirmation to navigate to the item; which merely further recites asking a buyer if they wish to navigate to an item they bought, which is managing commercial activity and managing human relationships and behavior, and thus falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea (claim 4). In addition, the claims further recite the navigational route is provided to an autonomous vehicle, which further recites the use of generic machinery (autonomous system/vehicle) as a tool to carry out the abstract idea/an existing process, and narrowing the field of use, which does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 5 and 6). In addition, the claims further recite the processors communicating with a node of the location, which is deemed extrasolution activity (data transmission), which is well-understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”) (claim 7).
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite receiving an indication of a trigger event associated with an item; communicating a request to a plurality of telecommunications radio access network nodes to identify, via integration with one or more external sensor systems, a location of the item associated with the trigger event; providing a prompt to retrieve the item associated with the trigger event at predetermined time intervals; and providing a navigational route to the location of the item associated with the trigger event.
The limitations of receiving an indication of a trigger event associated with an item, communicating a request to a plurality of nodes to identify a location of an item associated with the trigger event, providing a prompt to retrieve the item associated with the trigger event at predetermined time intervals, and providing a navigational route to the location of the item associated with the trigger event; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses elements that can be performed in the human mind, managing commercial interactions (sales activities, business relations), and managing human behavior. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements (telecommunications radio access network nodes, external sensor systems), the claims recite an abstract idea. In this case, receiving an indication of a trigger event, communicating a request to a plurality of nodes to identify a location of an item associated with the trigger event, and providing a navigational route to the location of the item associated with the trigger event; encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. In addition, the claims recite receiving an indication of a trigger event, communicating a request to a plurality of nodes to identify a location of an item associated with the trigger event; which encompass managing commercial activity including managing sales activities by receiving an indication of an interest or sale of an item and receiving determining where the item is available. Additionally, identifying a location of an item, providing a prompt to retrieve the item associated with the trigger event at predetermined time intervals, and providing navigational instructions to the item, encompasses managing human relationships and behavior, as well as managing business relations between a buyer and seller. Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (telecommunications radio access network nodes, external sensor systems) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, 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 of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps 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. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 9-14, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite the trigger event being a purchase, which further recites managing commercial activity, and thus falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea (claim 9). In addition, the claims further recite the event is an online action and a period of time, which encompasses managing commercial activity (sales activities and business relations) between a customer/potential customer and a seller, and thus falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea (claim 10). In addition, the claims further recite the navigational route is provided to an autonomous vehicle, which further recites the use of generic machinery (autonomous system/vehicle) as a tool to carry out the abstract idea/an existing process, and narrowing the field of use, which does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 11 and 12). In addition, the claims further recite prompting for confirmation to navigate to the item; which merely further recites asking a buyer if they wish to navigate to an item they bought, which is managing commercial activity and managing human relationships and behavior, and thus falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea (claim 13). In addition, the claims further recite the processors communicating with a node of the location, which is deemed extrasolution activity (data transmission), which is well-understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”) (claim 14).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive an indication of a trigger event associated with an item; communicate a request to a plurality of telecommunications radio access network nodes, via integration with one or more external sensor systems, to identify a location of [the item associated with the trigger event; determine that a user equipment (UE) associated with the trigger event is located within a vehicle; deliver a prompt to retrieve the item associated with the trigger event; and communicate a route to retrieve the item from the location of the item associated with the trigger event.
The limitations of receiving an indication of a trigger event associated with an item, communicating a request to a plurality of nodes to identify a location of an item associated with the trigger event, determining that a user equipment (UE) associated with the trigger event is located within a vehicle, delivering a prompt to retrieve the item associated with the trigger event, and communicating a route to retrieve the item from the location of the item associated with the trigger event; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses elements that can be performed in the human mind, managing commercial interactions (sales activities, business relations), and managing human behavior. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements (processors, computer-readable media, network nodes, user equipment, telecommunications radio access network nodes, external sensor systems), the claims recite an abstract idea. In this case, receiving an indication of a trigger event, communicating a request to a plurality of nodes to identify a location of an item associated with the trigger event, determining that a user equipment associated with the trigger event is located within a vehicle, and communicating a route to retrieve the item from the location of the item associated with the trigger event; encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. In addition, the claims recite receiving an indication of a trigger event, communicating a request to a plurality of nodes to identify a location of an item associated with the trigger event, determining that a user equipment (UE) associated with the trigger event is located within a vehicle, which encompass managing commercial activity including managing sales activities by receiving an indication of an interest or sale of an item and receiving determining where the item is available. Additionally, delivering a prompt to retrieve the item associated with the trigger event, and communicating a route to retrieve the item from the location of the item associated with the trigger event, encompasses managing human relationships and behavior, as well as managing business relations between a buyer and seller. Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (processors, computer-readable media, network nodes, user equipment, telecommunications radio access network nodes, external sensor systems), as tools to carry out the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, 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 of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps 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. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 16-20, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite identifying a route of the vehicle and modifying it, which further recites elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation evaluation, judgement), and managing human behavior and relationships, and thus falls into the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract idea (claims 16 and 17). In addition, the claims further recite determining that a period of time has elapsed prior to prompting to retrieve the item, which encompasses managing commercial activity (sales activities and business relations) between a customer/potential customer and a seller, and thus falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea (claim 18). In addition, the claims further recite that the item is a physical item in a physical state, and only destinations that are have the item available are considered for destinations; which narrows the field of use by defining the item retrieved and what to consider, which does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 19 and 20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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, 4-7, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batie et al. (US 2023/0274222 A1) (hereinafter Batie), in view of Colson et al. (US 2015/0356665 A1) (hereinafter Colson), in view of Aversa et al. (US 2017/0147966 A1) (hereinafter Aversa).
With respect to claim 1, Batie teaches:
One or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive an indication of a trigger event associated with an item (See at least paragraphs 49-51, 55, 56, 59, and 60 which describe a system determining merchants in an area of a vehicle and the vehicle’s route, wherein the system additionally can filter merchants based on customer calendars and purchase histories in order to determine if the user may have interest in items from the merchant).
Communicate a request to a plurality of network nodes to identify a location of an item associated with the trigger event (See at least paragraphs 49-51, 57, 59, 60, and 63 which describe transmitting inquires to merchants to identify if the merchant’s have items of interest in stock and available, wherein the locations that have the item in stock will identify the location of the item).
Provide a navigational route to the location of the item associated with the trigger event (See at least paragraph 49-51, 54, 58, 59, 60, and 61 which describe generating a navigational route for the vehicle to be redirected to the identified merchant with the item).
Batie discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Batie does not explicitly disclose the following, however Colson teaches:
Communicate a request to a plurality of telecommunications radio access network nodes to identify a location of the item associated with the trigger event (See at least paragraphs 11, 12, 14, 20-23, 34, and 66 which describe an onboard computer of a vehicle being used by a vehicle to request items to purchase, wherein the computer uses a radio transceiver to communicate with nodes of different merchants to identify if they have the item in stock and a purchase agreement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of detecting a user’s location as they travel a route in an autonomous vehicle, wherein the user’s interest in items and the nearby merchants is used to trigger a process of communicating with the merchants to identify if they have the item available, and wherein the vehicle is routed to a merchant with the item available of Batie, with the system and method of an onboard computer of a vehicle being used by a vehicle to request items to purchase, wherein the computer uses a radio transceiver to communicate with nodes of different merchants to identify if they have the item in stock and a purchase agreement of Colson. By using radio telecommunications to communicate with access nodes of merchants, a user will predictably be able to communicate with merchants over a wide range, thus ensuring that a plurality of merchants can be queried for items in stock, and thus, ensure the user is able to purchase a requested item.
The combination of Batie and Colson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Batie and Colson do not explicitly disclose the following, however Aversa teaches:
Communicate using telecommunications radio access network node to identify, via integration with one or more external sensor systems, a location of the item (See at least paragraphs 12, 15, 17, 18, 23, and 31 which describe using sensors in merchant locations to track the position of items in the store and the inventory of the items, wherein the sensors use radio technology to communicate the inventory information to a merchant node, which makes it accessible to other parties).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of detecting a user’s location as they travel a route in an autonomous vehicle, wherein the user’s interest in items and the nearby merchants is used to trigger a process of communicating with the merchants to identify if they have the item available, and wherein the vehicle is routed to a merchant with the item available of Batie, with the system and method of an onboard computer of a vehicle being used by a vehicle to request items to purchase, wherein the computer uses a radio transceiver to communicate with nodes of different merchants to identify if they have the item in stock and a purchase agreement of Colson, with the system and method of describe using sensors in merchant locations to track the position of items in the store and the inventory of the items, wherein the sensors use radio technology to communicate the inventory information to a merchant node, which makes it accessible to other parties of Aversa. By utilizing sensors to track inventory levels and position of items, and having the sensors report the information to merchants using radio communications, an inventory and purchasing system will predictably be able to track the exact location and inventory level of interested items, thus ensuring a user will be able to purchase desired items.
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Batie, Colson, and Aversa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Batie teaches:
Wherein the one or more processors further provide a prompt for confirmation to navigate to the location of the item (See at least paragraph 49-51, 54, 58, 59, 60, and 61 which describe generating a navigational route for the vehicle to be redirected to the identified merchant with the item, wherein a user is prompted to confirm that they are interested in the item at the determined merchant).
With respect to claim 5, Batie/Colson/Aversa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Batie teaches:
Wherein the navigational route is provided to an autonomous system (See at least paragraph 49-51, 54, 58, 59, 60, and 61 which describe generating a navigational route for the vehicle to be redirected to the identified merchant with the item, wherein a user is prompted to confirm that they are interested in the item at the determined merchant. In addition, see at least paragraphs 45, 46, and 87 which describe the vehicle that receives the navigational route as being an autonomous vehicle).
With respect to claim 6, Batie/Colson/Aversa discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 5 as stated above. In addition, Batie teaches:
Wherein the autonomous system is an autonomous vehicle (See at least paragraph 49-51, 54, 58, 59, 60, and 61 which describe generating a navigational route for the vehicle to be redirected to the identified merchant with the item, wherein a user is prompted to confirm that they are interested in the item at the determined merchant. In addition, see at least paragraphs 45, 46, and 87 which describe the vehicle that receives the navigational route as being an autonomous vehicle).
With respect to claim 7, Batie/Colson/Aversa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Batie teaches:
Wherein the processors further communicate a notification to a node associated with the location of the item that the item will be retrieved (See at least paragraphs 49-51 and 59-63 which describe notifying the merchant that a user is interested in an item and to prepare it for pickup).
With respect to claim 15, Batie teaches:
One or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive an indication of a trigger event (See at least paragraphs 49-51, 55, 56, 59, and 60 which describe a system determining merchants in an area of a vehicle and the vehicle’s route, wherein the system additionally can filter merchants based on customer calendars and purchase histories in order to determine if the user may have interest in items from the merchant).
Communicate a request to a plurality of network nodes to identify a location of an item associated with the trigger event (See at least paragraphs 49-51, 57, 59, 60, and 63 which describe transmitting inquires to merchants to identify if the merchant’s have items of interest in stock and available, wherein the locations that have the item in stock will identify the location of the item).
Determine that a user equipment (UE) associated with the trigger event is located within a vehicle (See at least paragraphs 51-53, 62, and 63 which describe a user device being in a vehicle a user is travelling in and communicating with the vehicle for identifying merchants with items for the user).
Deliver a prompt to retrieve the item associated with the trigger event; and Communicate a route to retrieve the item from the location of the item associated with the trigger event (See at least paragraph 49-51, 54, 58, 59, 60, and 61 which describe generating a navigational route for the vehicle to be redirected to the identified merchant with the item).
Batie discloses all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Batie does not explicitly disclose the following, however Colson teaches:
Communicate a request to a plurality of telecommunications radio access network nodes to identify a location of the item associated with the trigger event (See at least paragraphs 11, 12, 14, 20-23, 34, and 66 which describe an onboard computer of a vehicle being used by a vehicle to request items to purchase, wherein the computer uses a radio transceiver to communicate with nodes of different merchants to identify if they have the item in stock and a purchase agreement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of detecting a user’s location as they travel a route in an autonomous vehicle, wherein the user’s interest in items and the nearby merchants is used to trigger a process of communicating with the merchants to identify if they have the item available, and wherein the vehicle is routed to a merchant with the item available of Batie, with the system and method of an onboard computer of a vehicle being used by a vehicle to request items to purchase, wherein the computer uses a radio transceiver to communicate with nodes of different merchants to identify if they have the item in stock and a purchase agreement of Colson. By using radio telecommunications to communicate with access nodes of merchants, a user will predictably be able to communicate with merchants over a wide range, thus ensuring that a plurality of merchants can be queried for items in stock, and thus, ensure the user is able to purchase a requested item.
The combination of Batie and Colson discloses all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Batie and Colson do not explicitly disclose the following, however Aversa teaches:
Communicate using telecommunications radio access network node to identify, via integration with one or more external sensor systems, a location of the item (See at least paragraphs 12, 15, 17, 18, 23, and 31 which describe using sensors in merchant locations to track the position of items in the store and the inventory of the items, wherein the sensors use radio technology to communicate the inventory information to a merchant node, which makes it accessible to other parties).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of detecting a user’s location as they travel a route in an autonomous vehicle, wherein the user’s interest in items and the nearby merchants is used to trigger a process of communicating with the merchants to identify if they have the item available, and wherein the vehicle is routed to a merchant with the item available of Batie, with the system and method of an onboard computer of a vehicle being used by a vehicle to request items to purchase, wherein the computer uses a radio transceiver to communicate with nodes of different merchants to identify if they have the item in stock and a purchase agreement of Colson, with the system and method of describe using sensors in merchant locations to track the position of items in the store and the inventory of the items, wherein the sensors use radio technology to communicate the inventory information to a merchant node, which makes it accessible to other parties of Aversa. By utilizing sensors to track inventory levels and position of items, and having the sensors report the information to merchants using radio communications, an inventory and purchasing system will predictably be able to track the exact location and inventory level of interested items, thus ensuring a user will be able to purchase desired items.
With respect to claim 16, Batie/Colson/Aversa discloses all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. In addition, Batie teaches:
Wherein the one or more processors further identify an existing route of the vehicle (See at least paragraph 49-51, 54, 58, 59, 60, and 61 which describe generating a navigational route for the vehicle to be redirected to the identified merchant with the item, wherein a user is prompted to confirm that they are interested in the item at the determined merchant, wherein the vehicle has determined route to an original destination, and the system adds a detour to the merchant’s location).
With respect to claim 17, Batie/Colson/Aversa discloses all of the limitations of claims 15 and 16 as stated above. In addition, Batie teaches:
Wherein the one or more processors further modify the existing route to include the location of the item (See at least paragraph 49-51, 54, 58, 59, 60, and 61 which describe generating a navigational route for the vehicle to be redirected to the identified merchant with the item, wherein a user is prompted to confirm that they are interested in the item at the determined merchant, wherein the vehicle has determined route to an original destination, and the system adds a detour to the merchant’s location).
With respect to claim 19, Batie/Colson/Aversa discloses all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. In addition, Batie teaches:
Wherein the location of the item is a physical location having the item in a physical state available for retrieval (See at least paragraphs 49-51, 55, and 57 which describe the item being at a physical merchant’s location and is available for pickup).
With respect to claim 20, Batie/Colson/Aversa discloses all of the limitations of claims 15 and 19 as stated above. In addition, Batie teaches:
Wherein the one or more processors further ignore any destinations that do not have the item in a physical state available for retrieval (See at least paragraphs 49-51, 55, and 57 which describe determining merchant’s that have interested items available, wherein merchant’s that do not have the item available are excluded from offers to the user).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batie, Colson, and Aversa as applied to claim 1 as stated above, and further in view of Kelly et al. (US 2019/0279181 A1) (hereinafter Kelly).
With respect to claim 2, Batie/Colson/Aversa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Batie, Colson, and Aversa do not explicitly disclose the following, however Kelly teaches:
Wherein the trigger event is an online purchase of the item (See at least paragraphs 90, 92, 104, 108, 109, 111, 177, 181, and 346 which describe a user in a vehicle placing an order for an item using their mobile device, wherein the system determines which merchant in the user’s area has the item available, and places the order with the merchant, and wherein the user is able to drive and pickup the ordered item).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of detecting a user’s location as they travel a route in an autonomous vehicle, wherein the user’s interest in items and the nearby merchants is used to trigger a process of communicating with the merchants to identify if they have the item available, and wherein the vehicle is routed to a merchant with the item available of Batie, with the system and method of an onboard computer of a vehicle being used by a vehicle to request items to purchase, wherein the computer uses a radio transceiver to communicate with nodes of different merchants to identify if they have the item in stock and a purchase agreement of Colson, with the system and method of describe using sensors in merchant locations to track the position of items in the store and the inventory of the items, wherein the sensors use radio technology to communicate the inventory information to a merchant node, which makes it accessible to other parties of Aversa, with the system and method of a user in a vehicle placing an order for an item using their mobile device, wherein the system determines which merchant in the user’s area has the item available, and places the order with the merchant, and wherein the user is able to drive and pickup the ordered item of Kelly. By initiating a search for merchants that have an item available based on the customer placing the order, a managing system will predictably be able to identify only merchant’s that are of interest to the user, thus making routing user’s more likely to result in commercial actions.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batie, Colson, and Aversa as applied to claims 1 and 15 as stated above, and further in view of Neumann (US 2015/0379618 A1) (hereinafter Neumann).
With respect to claim 3, Batie/Colson/Aversa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Batie, Colson, and Aversa does not explicitly disclose the following, however Neumann teaches:
Wherein the trigger event is an online action related to the item and an elapsed predetermined period of time (See at least paragraphs 52-54, 59, 112, and 122 which describe a user placing items of interest in their bookmarks, wherein after a predetermined period of time, the sales system will query the user to determine if their interested in the items, and then navigate the user to a store for the items).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of detecting a user’s location as they travel a route in an autonomous vehicle, wherein the user’s interest in items and the nearby merchants is used to trigger a process of communicating with the merchants to identify if they have the item available, and wherein the vehicle is routed to a merchant with the item available of Batie, with the system and method of an onboard computer of a vehicle being used by a vehicle to request items to purchase, wherein the computer uses a radio transceiver to communicate with nodes of different merchants to identify if they have the item in stock and a purchase agreement of Colson, with the system and method of describe using sensors in merchant locations to track the position of items in the store and the inventory of the items, wherein the sensors use radio technology to communicate the inventory information to a merchant node, which makes it accessible to other parties of Aversa, with the system and method of a user placing items of interest in their bookmarks, wherein after a predetermined period of time, the sales system will query the user to determine if their interested in the items, and then navigate the user to a store for the items of Neumann. By tracking items in user’s bookmarks, and waiting a period of time, a managing system will predictably be able to identify items that are of interest to the user, thus ensuring they are directed to merchants that will be able to supply the items to users, and complete commercial actions.
With respect to claim 18, Batie/Colson/Aversa discloses all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Batie, Colson, and Aversa do not explicitly disclose the following, however Neumann teaches:
Wherein the one or more processors further determine that a predetermined period of time has elapsed prior to delivery of the prompt to retrieve the item (See at least paragraphs 52-54, 59, 112, and 122 which describe a user placing items of interest in their bookmarks, wherein after a predetermined period of time, the sales system will query the user to determine if their interested in the items, and then navigate the user to a store for the items).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of detecting a user’s location as they travel a route in an autonomous vehicle, wherein the user’s interest in items and the nearby merchants is used to trigger a process of communicating with the merchants to identify if they have the item available, and wherein the vehicle is routed to a merchant with the item available of Batie, with the system and method of an onboard computer of a vehicle being used by a vehicle to request items to purchase, wherein the computer uses a radio transceiver to communicate with nodes of different merchants to identify if they have the item in stock and a purchase agreement of Colson, with the system and method of describe using sensors in merchant locations to track the position of items in the store and the inventory of the items, wherein the sensors use radio technology to communicate the inventory information to a merchant node, which makes it accessible to other parties of Aversa, with the system and method of a user placing items of interest in their bookmarks, wherein after a predetermined period of time, the sales system will query the user to determine if their interested in the items, and then navigate the user to a store for the items of Neumann. By tracking items in user’s bookmarks, and waiting a period of time, a managing system will predictably be able to identify items that are of interest to the user, thus ensuring they are directed to merchants that will be able to supply the items to users, and complete commercial actions.
Claims 8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batie, Colson, Aversa, in view of Motoyama (US 2016/0025549 A1) (hereinafter Motoyama).
With respect to claim 8, Batie teaches:
Receiving an indication of a trigger event associated with an item (See at least paragraphs 49-51, 55, 56, 59, and 60 which describe a system determining merchants in an area of a vehicle and the vehicle’s route, wherein the system additionally can filter merchants based on customer calendars and purchase histories in order to determine if the user may have interest in items from the merchant).
Communicating a request to a plurality of network nodes to identify a location of an item associated with the trigger event (See at least paragraphs 49-51, 57, 59, 60, and 63 which describe transmitting inquires to merchants to identify if the merchant’s have items of interest in stock and available, wherein the locations that have the item in stock will identify the location of the item).
Providing a navigational route to the location of the item associated with the trigger event (See at least paragraph 49-51, 54, 58, 59, 60, and 61 which describe generating a navigational route for the vehicle to be redirected to the identified merchant with the item).
Batie discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Batie does not explicitly disclose the following, however Colson teaches:
Communicating a request to a plurality of telecommunications radio access network nodes to identify a location of the item associated with the trigger event (See at least paragraphs 11, 12, 14, 20-23, 34, and 66 which describe an onboard computer of a vehicle being used by a vehicle to request items to purchase, wherein the computer uses a radio transceiver to communicate with nodes of different merchants to identify if they have the item in stock and a purchase agreement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of detecting a user’s location as they travel a route in an autonomous vehicle, wherein the user’s interest in items and the nearby merchants is used to trigger a process of communicating with the merchants to identify if they have the item available, and wherein the vehicle is routed to a merchant with the item available of Batie, with the system and method of an onboard computer of a vehicle being used by a vehicle to request items to purchase, wherein the computer uses a radio transceiver to communicate with nodes of different merchants to identify if they have the item in stock and a purchase agreement of Colson. By using radio telecommunications to communicate with access nodes of merchants, a user will predictably be able to communicate with merchants over a wide range, thus ensuring that a plurality of merchants can be queried for items in stock, and thus, ensure the user is able to purchase a requested item.
The combination of Batie and Colson discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Batie and Colson do not explicitly disclose the following, however Aversa teaches:
Communicate using telecommunications radio access network node to identify, via integration with one or more external sensor systems, a location of the item (See at least paragraphs 12, 15, 17, 18, 23, and 31 which describe using sensors in merchant locations to track the position of items in the store and the inventory of the items, wherein the sensors use radio technology to communicate the inventory information to a merchant node, which makes it accessible to other parties).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of detecting a user’s location as they travel a route in an autonomous vehicle, wherein the user’s interest in items and the nearby merchants is used to trigger a process of communicating with the merchants to identify if they have the item available, and wherein the vehicle is routed to a merchant with the item available of Batie, with the system and method of an onboard computer of a vehicle being used by a vehicle to request items to purchase, wherein the computer uses a radio transceiver to communicate with nodes of different merchants to identify if they have the item in stock and a purchase agreement of Colson, with the system and method of describe using sensors in merchant locations to track the position of items in the store and the inventory of the items, wherein the sensors use radio technology to communicate the inventory information to a merchant node, which makes it accessible to other parties of Aversa. By utilizing sensors to track inventory levels and position of items, and having the sensors report the information to merchants using radio communications, an inventory and purchasing system will predictably be able to track the exact location and inventory level of interested items, thus ensuring a user will be able to purchase desired items.
Batie, Colson, and Aversa disclose all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Batie, Colson, and Aversa do not explicitly disclose the following, however Motoyama teaches:
Providing a prompt to retrieve the item associated with the trigger event at predetermined time intervals (See at least paragraphs 130, 133, and 134 which describe a user ordering an item and it being placed in storage, wherein the user is prompted to retrieve the item in regular time intervals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of detecting a user’s location as they travel a route in an autonomous vehicle, wherein the user’s interest in items and the nearby merchants is used to trigger a process of communicating with the merchants to identify if they have the item available, and wherein the vehicle is routed to a merchant with the item available of Batie, with the system and method of an onboard computer of a vehicle being used by a vehicle to request items to purchase, wherein the computer uses a radio transceiver to communicate with nodes of different merchants to identify if they have the item in stock and a purchase agreement of Colson, with the system and method of describe using sensors in merchant locations to track the position of items in the store and the inventory of the items, wherein the sensors use radio technology to communicate the inventory information to a merchant node, which makes it accessible to other parties of Aversa, with the system and method of a user ordering an item and it being placed in storage, wherein the user is prompted to retrieve the item in regular time intervals of Motoyama. By prompting the user to retrieve their item of interest in regular intervals, a managing system will predictably be able to remind the user to collect their desired item, thus completing a commercial action, and removing items for stocking space.
With respect to claim 11, Batie/Colson/Aversa/Motoyama discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. In addition, Batie teaches:
Wherein the navigational route is provided to an autonomous system (See at least paragraph 49-51, 54, 58, 59, 60, and 61 which describe generating a navigational route for the vehicle to be redirected to the identified merchant with the item, wherein a user is prompted to confirm that they are interested in the item at the determined merchant. In addition, see at least paragraphs 45, 46, and 87 which describe the vehicle that receives the navigational route as being an autonomous vehicle).
With respect to claim 12, Batie/Colson/Aversa/Motoyama discloses all of the limitations of claims 8 and 11 as stated above. In addition, Batie teaches:
Wherein the autonomous system is an autonomous vehicle (See at least paragraph 49-51, 54, 58, 59, 60, and 61 which describe generating a navigational route for the vehicle to be redirected to the identified merchant with the item, wherein a user is prompted to confirm that they are interested in the item at the determined merchant. In addition, see at least paragraphs 45, 46, and 87 which describe the vehicle that receives the navigational route as being an autonomous vehicle).
With respect to claim 13, Batie/Colson/Aversa/Motoyama discloses all of the limitations of claims 8, 11, and 12 as stated above. In addition, Batie teaches:
Providing a prompt for confirmation to navigate the autonomous vehicle to the location of the item (See at least paragraph 49-51, 54, 58, 59, 60, and 61 which describe generating a navigational route for the vehicle to be redirected to the identified merchant with the item, wherein a user is prompted to confirm that they are interested in the item at the determined merchant).
With respect to claim 14, Batie/Colson/Aversa/Motoyama discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. In addition, Batie teaches:
Communicating a notification to a node associated with the location of the item that the item will be retrieved (See at least paragraphs 49-51 and 59-63 which describe notifying the merchant that a user is interested in an item and to prepare it for pickup).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batie, Colson, Aversa, and Motoyama as applied to claim 8 as stated above, and further in view of Kelly.
With respect to claim 9, Batie/Colson/Aversa/Motoyama discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Batie, Colson, Aversa, and Motoyama do not explicitly disclose the following, however Kelly teaches:
Wherein the trigger event is an online purchase of the item (See at least paragraphs 90, 92, 104, 108, 109, 111, 177, 181, and 346 which describe a user in a vehicle placing an order for an item using their mobile device, wherein the system determines which merchant in the user’s area has the item available, and places the order with the merchant, and wherein the user is able to drive and pickup the ordered item).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of detecting a user’s location as they travel a route in an autonomous vehicle, wherein the user’s interest in items and the nearby merchants is used to trigger a process of communicating with the merchants to identify if they have the item available, and wherein the vehicle is routed to a merchant with the item available of Batie, with the system and method of an onboard computer of a vehicle being used by a vehicle to request items to purchase, wherein the computer uses a radio transceiver to communicate with nodes of different merchants to identify if they have the item in stock and a purchase agreement of Colson, with the system and method of describe using sensors in merchant locations to track the position of items in the store and the inventory of the items, wherein the sensors use radio technology to communicate the inventory information to a merchant node, which makes it accessible to other parties of Aversa, with the system and method of a user ordering an item and it being placed in storage, wherein the user is prompted to retrieve the item in regular time intervals of Motoyama, with the system and method of a user in a vehicle placing an order for an item using their mobile device, wherein the system determines which merchant in the user’s area has the item available, and places the order with the merchant, and wherein the user is able to drive and pickup the ordered item of Kelly. By initiating a search for merchants that have an item available based on the customer placing the order, a managing system will predictably be able to identify only merchant’s that are of interest to the user, thus making routing user’s more likely to result in commercial actions.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batie, Colson, Aversa, and Motoyama as applied to claim 8 as stated above, and further in view of Neumann.
With respect to claim 10, Batie/Colson/Aversa/Motoyama discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Batie, Colson, Aversa, and Motoyama do not explicitly disclose the following, however Neumann teaches:
Wherein the trigger event is an online action related to the item and an elapsed predetermined period of time (See at least paragraphs 52-54, 59, 112, and 122 which describe a user placing items of interest in their bookmarks, wherein after a predetermined period of time, the sales system will query the user to determine if their interested in the items, and then navigate the user to a store for the items).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of detecting a user’s location as they travel a route in an autonomous vehicle, wherein the user’s interest in items and the nearby merchants is used to trigger a process of communicating with the merchants to identify if they have the item available, and wherein the vehicle is routed to a merchant with the item available of Batie, with the system and method of an onboard computer of a vehicle being used by a vehicle to request items to purchase, wherein the computer uses a radio transceiver to communicate with nodes of different merchants to identify if they have the item in stock and a purchase agreement of Colson, with the system and method of describe using sensors in merchant locations to track the position of items in the store and the inventory of the items, wherein the sensors use radio technology to communicate the inventory information to a merchant node, which makes it accessible to other parties of Aversa, with the system and method of a user ordering an item and it being placed in storage, wherein the user is prompted to retrieve the item in regular time intervals of Motoyama, with the system and method of a user placing items of interest in their bookmarks, wherein after a predetermined period of time, the sales system will query the user to determine if their interested in the items, and then navigate the user to a store for the items of Neumann. By tracking items in user’s bookmarks, and waiting a period of time, a managing system will predictably be able to identify items that are of interest to the user, thus ensuring they are directed to merchants that will be able to supply the items to users, and complete commercial actions.
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 MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)-270-1833. 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.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
25 February 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628