DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
• The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 04/14/2026.
• Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10, 16, and 19 have been amended.
• Claims 5-6 and 14-15 have been canceled.
• Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-4, 7-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-4 and 7-9 are directed to a process, claims 10-13 and 16-18 are directed to a manufacture, and claims 19-20 are directed to a machine. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-20 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
receiving an order for an item;
sending an instruction message to a picker, the instruction message causing to display an instruction to obtain the item from a source;
receiving a response message that the picker was unable to obtain the item from the source;
storing an order failure tag, the order failure tag associated with an account of the user and the item;
sending a notification message to the user, wherein sending the notification message causes to display text describing the picker being unable to obtain the item from the source;
at a later time, after receiving the response message that the picker was unable to obtain the item from the source, detecting the stored order failure tag for the user;
responsive to detecting the stored order failure tag, applying an item availability model to predict that the item is available, wherein the item availability model comprises using a set of data from previous orders, to predict whether a particular item is available at a particular source;
generating a notification to order a set of items for the user based on the prediction that the item is available at the later time, wherein generating the notification comprises one of:
selecting, for the set of items, the item that is predicted by the item availability model to be available at the later time, or
selecting, for the set of items, another item based on a similarity of the other item to the item that is predicted by the item availability model to be available at the later time; and
sending the notification to order the set of items, causing to display the notification, wherein the notification comprises a element displayed that allows the user to order the set of items;
receiving a selection by the user of the element; and
responsive to receiving the selection, sending another instruction message to another picker, the instruction message causing to display an instruction to obtain the set of items from another source.
The above limitations recite the concept of ordering items based on availability data. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, the ordering of items represents sales behaviors. Further, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Specifically, the analysis of availability data are observations, evaluations, and judgements. These limitations are similar to the mental process of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Claims 10 and 19 recite the same abstract ideas as claim 1 and accordingly fall within the same grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 10, and 19 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 10, and 19 recite additional elements, such as an online system, a first user interface, a user device, a picker device, a database of order failure tags, transmitting data, a chat user interface, a machine-learning model that is trained, training data, a user interface element, another picker device, a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps, and a system comprising: one or more processors that execute instructions; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions, executable by the one or more processors. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1, 10, and 19 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1, 10, and 29 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., ordering items based on availability data) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1, 10, and 19 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1, 10, and 19 specifying that the abstract idea of ordering items based on availability data is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 10, and 19 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 10, and 19 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1, 10, and 19, these claims recite additional elements, such as an online system, a first user interface, a user device, a picker device, a database of order failure tags, transmitting data, a chat user interface, a machine-learning model that is trained, training data, a user interface element, another picker device, a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps, and a system comprising: one or more processors that execute instructions; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions, executable by the one or more processors. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, sending information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1, 10, and 19 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1, 10, and 19 specifying that the abstract idea of ordering items based on availability data is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1, 10, and 19 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 10, and 19 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Further, these claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-13, 16-18 are “directed to” an abstract idea and are not integrated into a practical application. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19, dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-13, 16-18, analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, these limitations generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-20 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes previously cited Rao et al. (US 20190236740 A1), hereafter Rao, previously cited Seaward et al. (US 20160307265 A1), hereinafter Seaward, previously cited Yau et al. (US 20220327467 A1, hereinafter Yau, newly cited Di Capua et al. (US 20240353228 A1), hereinafter Di Capua, and previously cited NPL Reference U, initially cited in the Office action dated 01/15/2026.
Although individually the references teach concepts such as unavailable products, order failure tags, a machine learning model, and ordering items, none of the references teach nor render obvious that in response to a picker marking an item unavailable, storing an order failure tag and notifying a customer, where, responsive to the order failure tag, a machine learning model is used to predict availability of the item and generating a notification based on a prediction that the item is available at a later time, where another picker device is instructed to obtain the set of items.
Previously cited Rao discloses a product delivery system (Rao: [0003-0004]). A user may select items through an interface and a probability may be used to send an instruction to a picker (Rao: [0053]; [0035]). Rao further discloses receiving an indication from a picker that he or she cannot find an item at the warehouse, where the system may incorporate the information provided by the picker through the PMA into training datasets 220. The inventory database may store a time that the item was last not found (a picker looked for the item but could not find it). If the online concierge system frequently receives customer requests to add an item to a delivery order that is then determine to have an availability probability below a threshold, the online concierge system may temporarily remove the item from the item options provided to a customer through the customer interface (Rao: [0049]; [0017]; [0057]). Rao further discloses if an availability probability is above the threshold, this indicates that the item is predicted to be available at the warehouse. The picker management engine 210 then instructs a picker to continue looking for the item (Rao: [0049-0050]). Yet Rao does not explicitly disclose all of the limitations pertaining to the tag, the notification to order items, and sending a message to another picker.
Previously cited Seaward teaches a fulfillment method (Seward: [0026]). Seward further teaches responding to determining that an order cannot be fulfilled by providing an alternate suggestion. For example, in response to receiving an order for coffee at 9 AM from fulfillment center A, the server may provide the notification, ‘You're estimated to arrive at fulfillment center A at 9:00 AM, but coffee is not available from fulfillment center A until 9:10 AM. Would you like to order coffee for 9:10 AM?’ In yet another example, in response to determining that an order cannot be fulfilled, the server may provide a notification to the user device to display ‘You're estimated to arrive at fulfillment center A at 9:00 AM but coffee is not available until 9:20 AM. Would you like to instead order tea for 9:00 AM?’ (Seaward: [0055]). However, Seward does not explicitly teach all of the limitations regarding the probability, the notifications, and the order failure tag.
Previously cited Yau teaches an inventory monitoring system (Yau: [abstract]). Yau further teaches that an employee enters information that a product is out-of-stock, for example, by scanning a shelf label. A determination is made as to whether the item is on a monitor list (a list of products being monitored for potentially being out-of-stock given that an out-of-stock scan has been observed for this item before but PI hasn't been adjusted) when an out-of-stock scan is received. If it is not on the list, the features are applied to a first machine learning model, which yields a probability that the item is out-of-stock. The obtained probability is compared to a threshold, and if the probability value is above a threshold, then the PI value is adjusted. If not above the threshold, then the item is monitored for future events (e.g., another out-of-stock scan, sales) (Yau: [0013-0014]). However, Yau does not teach the limitations regarding the notifications and the other picker.
Newly cited Di Capua teaches a delivery system (Di Capua: [0003]). Di Capua further teaches receiving input data based on the user disregarding the respective item, wherein the user disregarding the respective item is indicative of the respective item being unavailable at the merchant location, and determining, by the computing system, a replacement item and a replacement item location, wherein the replacement item is indicative of an alternative item to replace the respective item (Di Capua: [0013-0014]). Di Capua further teaches multiple shoppers operating multiple devices (Di Capua: [0050] and Fig. 1). However, Di Capua does not teach the limitations regarding the notifications and the model.
Previously cited NPL Reference U teaches grocery pickup options. Customers may choose substitutions for items in the application, in the event the item is not available. Employees may shop for the customer. However, U does not teach all of the limitations regarding the probability, the notifications, and the model.
While these references arguably teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, these references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, claims 1, 10, and 19, taken as a whole, are indicated to be allowable over the cited prior art. The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims allowable over the prior art/additional art. Claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 depend from claims 1, 10, and 19, and therefore the dependent claims are also indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
The examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of the Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by the examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/14/2026, have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because the “predictive modeling, real-time detection of failed orders, and interactive chat-based ordering comprises a technological improvement to user-device communications, as the system applies the predictive capabilities in a particular interaction that enhances the efficiency of the ordering workflow” (Remarks pages 11-12). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” The MPEP further states that “[t]he 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,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner…the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” (see MPEP 2106.04). That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
While the examiner acknowledges that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field may constitute integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement. Rather, the claims provide an improvement to the abstract idea of product management using comparisons. With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding the improvement over prior technology that struggled to identify altered characteristics, the examiner notes that the claims do not reflect any sort of improvement to monitoring systems and merely include high level generic additional elements.
Although the claims include computer technology such as an online system, a first user interface, a user device, a picker device, a database of order failure tags, transmitting data, a chat user interface, a machine-learning model that is trained, training data, a user interface element, another picker device, a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps, and a system comprising: one or more processors that execute instructions; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions, executable by the one or more processors, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of ordering items based on availability data in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to technological improvements but are directed to improving ordering items based on availability data. With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding the interface, the examiner notes the interface is recited at a high level and is insufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in a more efficient process for product ordering, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the server and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing data sets related to product ordering while still employing the same server and/or computer components used in conventional systems to improve ordering items based on availability data, e.g. a business method, and therefore is merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing components. As such, the claims are not eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights