DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 10 April 2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-16 were amended.
Claim 3 is canceled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
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 1-2 and 4-14; 15; and 16 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-2 and 4-14; 15; and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1 recites:
acquiring a user ID, desired time information associated with the user ID and indicating a desired time or a desired timeframe for receiving a commodity, and ordered commodity information associated with the user ID;
acquire a current time;
determining, on the basis of the desired time information and the ordered commodity information, whether an ordered commodity indicated by the ordered commodity information is receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe;
deciding a receipt time or a receipt timeframe for the ordered commodity in response to determining that the ordered commodity is receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe; and
outputting receipt time information indicating the receipt time or the receipt timeframe,
wherein
in the determining,
a picking-up period required to pick up the ordered commodity by a clerk of the store is calculated on the basis of the ordered commodity information, and
it is determined on the basis of the current time and the picking-up period whether the ordered commodity is receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe.
Therefore, the claim is directed to “providing information about delivery of commodities at a store”, which is a method of organizing human activity because it is a sales activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): a computer. The additional element individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because it merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 and 4-14 merely further limit the abstract idea and are thereby considered to be ineligible.
Claim(s) 15; and 16 are parallel in nature to claim(s) 1. Accordingly claim(s) 15; and 16 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis as claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 April 2026, with respect to Foreign Priority, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s certified English translation fulfills the requirement required by the examiner. Therefore, foreign priority of the application is acknowledged.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 April 2026, with respect to 35 USC § 112(f), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment to include the processor to perform the claimed functions, claims sufficient structure to implement the claimed functions and thereby fails the 3-prong test. The 112(f) invocation has been removed.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 April 2026, with respect to 35 USC § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claims 1-2 and 4-16, the applicant argues that the invention as claimed integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
In response to the argument of claims 1-2 and 4-16, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues the limitations:
acquiring a user ID, desired time information associated with the user ID and indicating a desired time or a desired timeframe for receiving a commodity, and ordered commodity information associated with the user ID;
acquire a current time;
determining, on the basis of the desired time information and the ordered commodity information, whether an ordered commodity indicated by the ordered commodity information is receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe;
deciding a receipt time or a receipt timeframe for the ordered commodity in response to determining that the ordered commodity is receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe; and
outputting receipt time information indicating the receipt time or the receipt timeframe,
wherein
in the determining,
a picking-up period required to pick up the ordered commodity by a clerk of the store is calculated on the basis of the ordered commodity information, and
it is determined on the basis of the current time and the picking-up period whether the ordered commodity is receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe.
ties the abstract idea into a practical application because the claimed invention "attains a smooth delivery of a commodity to a user while avoiding decision of the receipt time or the receipt timeframe when the ordered commodity is unreceivable at the desired receipt time or in the desired timeframe," as described at paragraph [0133] of US 2024/0412275. Examiner maintains the limitations recited above are directed to an abstract idea because they recite the concept of providing information about delivery of commodities at a store. This concept is a sales activity, making it a commercial interaction, which falls into the grouping of methods of organizing human activity (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.B.). Therefore, the improvement argued by the applicant is an improvement to the abstract idea and not to a technical field. It is noted in order for a claim to be integrated into a practical application the additional elements must be evaluated.
USPTO guidance uses the term ‘‘additional elements’’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. Again, whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the exception into a practical application should be evaluated on the claim as a whole. Since the limitations addressed by the applicant are directed to the judicial exception, they cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that invention as claimed is ineligible.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 April 2026, with respect to 35 USC § 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees the combination of Carr in view of Smith does not consider a picking-up period required to pick up the ordered commodity by a clerk of the store. While Krishnamoorthy does teach a picking-up period required to pick up the ordered commodity by a clerk of the store it does not consider acquiring a current time and using the current time along with the picking-up period required to pick up the ordered commodity by a clerk of the store. Combining Carr in view of Smith and further in view of Krishnamoorthy would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias. Therefore, the art rejection for claims 1-2 and 4-16 have been removed.
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 RESHA DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights