DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to claims on 07/06/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. The effective filling date is 10/15/2024.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1- Claims 1-11 are directed to a method, which is a patent eligible subject matter. Claims 12-19 are directed to a system, a patent eligible subject matter. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable media, a patent eligible subject matter. Claims 1-20 pass step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1-The independent claim 1, and similarly claim 12 and 20, recite:
accessing multimodal content item data (accessing information is a form of collecting information, and is grouped as a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
processing the multimodal content item data to generate a plurality of data objects comprising at least (i) one or more comestible items (ii) context data and (iii) a content category (generating data objects from content item data is a method of analyzing the data and displaying the results, which is grouped as a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
processing the plurality of data objects to generate a predicted dish and dish data (generating predicted dishes from content data objects is a method of analyzing the data and displaying the results, which is grouped as a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
generating, based on the predicted dish and dish data, a list data structure comprising a plurality of ingredients and quantities of the respective ingredients (generating data structure from predicted dish data is a method of analyzing the data and displaying the results, which is grouped as a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
determining that a candidate merchant associated with a comestible item delivery service data structure is capable of fulfilling the list data structure based on the content category (making a determination is a method of analyzing the data, which is grouped as a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
processing the list data structure against a comestible item delivery service data structure to determine a deliverability status associated with the list data structure (making a determination by comparing the results of the generation is analyzing data, which is grouped as a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
determining that the deliverability status for the list data structure indicates a deliverable status (making a determination by comparing the results of the generation is analyzing data, which is grouped as a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
generating, automatically and responsive to determining that the deliverability status for the list data structure indicates the deliverable status, an action data structure, wherein the action data structure is structurally formatted for a specific backend software service corresponding to the content category, the action data structure comprising instructions, that are executable by one or more processors of a client device to cause initiation of a service request comprising one or more available items via an application programming interface associated with the comestible item delivery service (generating instructions to be sent to a client device is make analyzing information and displaying the results to a client, which is grouped as a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); and
transmitting data comprising the multimodal content item and the action data structure to the client device (transmitting the results of the decisions is displaying the results of analysis, which is grouped as a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Step 2A, Prong 2- The additional elements of independent claim 1, and similarly claims 12 and 20, include client device, processor, and non-transitory computer readable storage media. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the elements are used in their ordinary capacity, and under MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) that when the machinery is merely a tool to perform an existing process, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The client device is recited to send and received information, the processor is used to perform the analysis and the storage media stores the process steps. Therefore, the computer elements are added to the claims as tools to perform the analysis steps.
Step 2B-The independent claim 1, and similarly claims 12 and 20, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements are described with extreme generality. A client device can be a plethora of computers that are capable of sending and receiving information, processor and storage media are all found within electronic devices. They are described in generality with it’s application to the abstract idea, and under MPEP 2106.05(f)(3) the broad applicability across many field does not provide significantly more.
Dependent Claims
Claims 2-11 and 13-19, recite additional steps of making determination and transmitting the information, which are steps of receiving information, analyzing information and displaying the results of the analysis, which are grouped as a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The additional elements found in dependent claim include machine learning model. The machine learning model is presented as a tool to perform the processing of information and is described by name only. This showcases how the model is being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea of processing information, under MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101, Applicant points to the reduction in latency and network resource utilization as the technical problem being solved by the instant claims. However, the use of two different databases, and identifying which database to use to reduce the latency does not showcase how this would be a technical improvement, as it is a method of faster decision making, which is accomplished by using a computer as a tool. When the claim does not include anything specific about how the information is pulled, it does not include the details necessary to show how the claim would be a technical improvement.
Adding a machine learning model to make a decision, with no technical details, is using machine learning as the tool to perform the abstract idea of analyzing information. The tool is described generically, as in name only, and does not showcase any details that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or showcase more than the abstract idea.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As discussed in the interview on 07/07/2026, when the determination about the content of the media is added, this changes the way in which the information is analyzed which is different from previously presented prior art.
Chan is able to identify food items in a recipe video, but does not include content specific identification.
Patel is used to teach ordering grocery items from a list but also does not teach content specific identification.
Additional searching has been done to specifically look for the identification of the type of content being analyzed and then look for any indication that it could be used to identify the specific items in the content, use a specific database to find that item, and then order the items in a video.
The claim limitations when in combination not found in prior art follows:
determining that a candidate merchant associated with a comestible item delivery service data structure is capable of fulfilling the list data structure based on the content category
processing the list data structure against a comestible item delivery service data structure to determine a deliverability status associated with the list data structure
generating, automatically and responsive to determining that the deliverability status for the list data structure indicates the deliverable status, an action data structure, wherein the action data structure is structurally formatted for a specific backend software service corresponding to the content category, the action data structure comprising instructions, that are executable by one or more processors of a client device to cause initiation of a service request comprising one or more available items via an application programming interface associated with the comestible item delivery service.
However, the claims remain ineligible under 101, for reciting an abstract idea.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20170286893A1 Clark et al. (hereinafter Clark) teaches delivering from a store (Abstract).
US 2024/0420037 A1 Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang) teaches availability of delivery item (Abstract).
US 8,577,734 B2 Treyz et al. teaches a shopping assistant device (Abstract).
US 2014/0164126 A1 Nicholas et al. teaches determining that the service assignment has been completed ([0130]).
US 2019/0295440 A1 Hadad teaches obtaining food data (Hadad Abstract, food data).
US 2020/0357040 A1 Patel et al. teaches order fulfillment (Abstract).
US 2018/0308143 A1 Chan et al. teaches analyzing photos (Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA E SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9501. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 9:00 AM-5PM EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/JESSICA E SULLIVAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights