DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 25, 2026, has been entered.
In the response filed March 25, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 9, and 10; and canceled claim 6. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are pending in the current application.
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-5 and 7-11 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by adjusting the acceptance period. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps describe or set-forth making order decisions from different users based on locations and providing information regarding order completion, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. That an acceptance period is determined is a step that is a part of the abstract idea. Here, an acceptance period is determined based on different data received by there is no step with regard to a dynamic adjustment of the determined acceptance period. The steps described within the abstract idea describes activity that involves multiple people and as such fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant argues the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem by reducing a communication load between devices. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, a reduction of a delivery load or a more efficient communication workload between a terminal and server does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC V. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC V. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed.Cir.2012). When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Second, there is no mention or description of the communication load in the claim language nor is there any language that describes the specific loads that are transmitted between devices. The claims presented in this application do not disclose or describe any limitations that specifically detail increases in efficiencies, reductions in communication load, etc. Here, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an information displaying and processing device,… comprising: at least one memory configured to store computer program code; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and operate as instructed by the computer program code,” (claim 1); “at least one processor that implements an information displaying and processing device” (claim 9); “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program,” “a computer that implements the information displaying and processing device,” (claim 10) ; “a user terminal,” “another user terminal,” “a first user terminal associated with a first user,” “an application,” “a global positioning system (GPS) built in the first user terminal,” “a display of the first user terminal,” “a database,” “one or more second user terminals associated with one or more second users,” “a display of the one or more second user terminals,” “a terminal of the entity,” (claims 1, 9, and 10), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “storing the request ID and associated information of the first request in a database;” “acquired using a global positioning system (GPS) built in the first user terminal, from the user terminal;” “transmitting a push notification to the one or more second user terminals via the application running on the one or more second user terminals based on the acquired address, wherein the push notification includes the request ID of the first request, a user ID of the first user, an entity to process a sharing request, and an acceptance period of the sharing request,” “based on the push notification received via the application running on the one or more second user terminals, displaying, on a display of the one or more second user terminals, information included in the push notification together with an indication that the sharing request is available within the acceptance period and a second list of items that can be included in the sharing request given the acceptance period and a preparation time required for each item included in the second list;” “transmitting the sharing request relating to the request information bundle to a terminal of the entity;” “based on a notification indicating that a processing of the sharing request has been completed being received from the terminal of the entity or a pre-designated time related to the sharing request having elapsed, displaying on the display of the first user terminal, and not the one or more second user terminals related to the sharing request, a button to be operated at a time corresponding to the first user being at a pre-designated location,” and “displaying on the display of the one or more second user terminals, an indication corresponding to the first user pressing the button,” (claims 1, 9, and 10), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional elements are deemed “extra-solution” because they are merely presenting data/information to a user. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10, line 5, “the information displaying and processing device” should read --an information displaying and processing device--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 11, are drawn to a machine, claim 9 is drawn to a process, and claim 10 is drawn to an article of manufacture, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 9 (representative of claims 1 and 10) recites/describes the following steps:
“receiving, based on… performing a search request for one or more entities… information of a current location of the first user…”
“accepting, …, a first request received…upon the first user selecting one or more items from a first list of items…, assigning a request identifier (ID) to the first request, …;”
“acquiring location information of the entity;”
“acquiring a movement time required for the first user…to arrive at the entity, the movement time being based on current location information of the first user …, the location information of the entity, and traffic information between locations…”
“acquiring an address…associated with one or more second users …, the acceptance period is determined, in real time, … for the current location of the first user …, a preparation time required for the one or more items selected by the first user and included in the first request, and the movement time reflecting the traffic information between the locations of the first user … and the entity, wherein the movement time is updated, in real time, … for the current location of the first user … and the traffic information…;”
“via selection of one or more items from the second list …accepting one or more second requests from the one or more second user …, in association with the request ID of the first request;”
“associating, as the sharing request, request information relating to the first request and request information relating to the one or more second requests in a request information bundle;”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth making order decisions from different users based on locations and providing information regarding order completion, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Each of the depending claims 2-5, 7, 8, and 11, likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any elements recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “an information displaying and processing device,… comprising: at least one memory configured to store computer program code; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and operate as instructed by the computer program code,” (claim 1); “at least one processor that implements an information displaying and processing device” (claim 9); “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program,” “a computer that implements the information displaying and processing device,” (claim 10) ; “a user terminal,” “another user terminal,” “a first user terminal associated with a first user,” “an application,” “a global positioning system (GPS) built in the first user terminal,” “a display of the first user terminal,” “a database,” “one or more second user terminals associated with one or more second users,” “a display of the one or more second user terminals,” “a terminal of the entity,” (claims 1, 9, and 10).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an information displaying and processing device,… comprising: at least one memory configured to store computer program code; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and operate as instructed by the computer program code,” (claim 1); “at least one processor that implements an information displaying and processing device” (claim 9); “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program,” “a computer that implements the information displaying and processing device,” (claim 10) ; “a user terminal,” “another user terminal,” “a first user terminal associated with a first user,” “an application,” “a global positioning system (GPS) built in the first user terminal,” “a display of the first user terminal,” “a database,” “one or more second user terminals associated with one or more second users,” “a display of the one or more second user terminals,” “a terminal of the entity,” (claims 1, 9, and 10), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “storing the request ID and associated information of the first request in a database;” “acquired using a global positioning system (GPS) built in the first user terminal, from the user terminal;” “transmitting a push notification to the one or more second user terminals via the application running on the one or more second user terminals based on the acquired address, wherein the push notification includes the request ID of the first request, a user ID of the first user, an entity to process a sharing request, and an acceptance period of the sharing request,” “based on the push notification received via the application running on the one or more second user terminals, displaying, on a display of the one or more second user terminals, information included in the push notification together with an indication that the sharing request is available within the acceptance period and a second list of items that can be included in the sharing request given the acceptance period and a preparation time required for each item included in the second list;” “transmitting the sharing request relating to the request information bundle to a terminal of the entity;” “based on a notification indicating that a processing of the sharing request has been completed being received from the terminal of the entity or a pre-designated time related to the sharing request having elapsed, displaying on the display of the first user terminal, and not the one or more second user terminals related to the sharing request, a button to be operated at a time corresponding to the first user being at a pre-designated location,” and “displaying on the display of the one or more second user terminals, an indication corresponding to the first user pressing the button,” (claims 1, 9, and 10).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “storing the request ID and associated information of the first request in a database;” “acquired using a global positioning system (GPS) built in the first user terminal, from the user terminal;” “transmitting a push notification to the one or more second user terminals via the application running on the one or more second user terminals based on the acquired address, wherein the push notification includes the request ID of the first request, a user ID of the first user, an entity to process a sharing request, and an acceptance period of the sharing request,” “based on the push notification received via the application running on the one or more second user terminals, displaying, on a display of the one or more second user terminals, information included in the push notification together with an indication that the sharing request is available within the acceptance period and a second list of items that can be included in the sharing request given the acceptance period and a preparation time required for each item included in the second list;” “transmitting the sharing request relating to the request information bundle to a terminal of the entity;” “based on a notification indicating that a processing of the sharing request has been completed being received from the terminal of the entity or a pre-designated time related to the sharing request having elapsed, displaying on the display of the first user terminal, and not the one or more second user terminals related to the sharing request, a button to be operated at a time corresponding to the first user being at a pre-designated location,” and “displaying on the display of the one or more second user terminals, an indication corresponding to the first user pressing the button,” (claims 1, 9, and 10), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional elements are deemed “extra-solution” because they are merely presenting data/information to a user. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The dependent claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “display, on the display of the one or more second user terminals, an indication of acceptance of the one or more second requests after the first request is accepted” (claim 7); “display, on the display of the first user terminal, an indication of request information relating to the one or more second requests accepted” (claim 8); and “based on the information of the current location of the first user terminal, transmit information of one or more entities within a predetermined range from the current location of the first user terminal” (claim 11).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “display, on the display of the one or more second user terminals, an indication of acceptance of the one or more second requests after the first request is accepted” (claim 7); “display, on the display of the first user terminal, an indication of request information relating to the one or more second requests accepted” (claim 8); and “based on the information of the current location of the first user terminal, transmit information of one or more entities within a predetermined range from the current location of the first user terminal” (claim 11), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional elements are deemed “extra-solution” because they are merely presenting data/information to a user. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Remaining dependent claims 2-5 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an information displaying and processing device,… comprising: at least one memory configured to store computer program code; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and operate as instructed by the computer program code,” (claim 1); “at least one processor that implements an information displaying and processing device” (claim 9); “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program,” “a computer that implements the information displaying and processing device,” (claim 10) ; “a user terminal,” “another user terminal,” “a first user terminal associated with a first user,” “an application,” “a global positioning system (GPS) built in the first user terminal,” “a display of the first user terminal,” “a database,” “one or more second user terminals associated with one or more second users,” “a display of the one or more second user terminals,” “a terminal of the entity,” (claims 1, 9, and 10), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional elements of “storing the request ID and associated information of the first request in a database;” “acquired using a global positioning system (GPS) built in the first user terminal, from the user terminal;” “transmitting a push notification to the one or more second user terminals via the application running on the one or more second user terminals based on the acquired address, wherein the push notification includes the request ID of the first request, a user ID of the first user, an entity to process a sharing request, and an acceptance period of the sharing request,” “based on the push notification received via the application running on the one or more second user terminals, displaying, on a display of the one or more second user terminals, information included in the push notification together with an indication that the sharing request is available within the acceptance period and a second list of items that can be included in the sharing request given the acceptance period and a preparation time required for each item included in the second list;” “transmitting the sharing request relating to the request information bundle to a terminal of the entity;” “based on a notification indicating that a processing of the sharing request has been completed being received from the terminal of the entity or a pre-designated time related to the sharing request having elapsed, displaying on the display of the first user terminal, and not the one or more second user terminals related to the sharing request, a button to be operated at a time corresponding to the first user being at a pre-designated location,” and “displaying on the display of the one or more second user terminals, an indication corresponding to the first user pressing the button,” (claims 1, 9, and 10); “display, on the display of the one or more second user terminals, an indication of acceptance of the one or more second requests after the first request is accepted” (claim 7); “display, on the display of the first user terminal, an indication of request information relating to the one or more second requests accepted” (claim 8); and “based on the information of the current location of the first user terminal, transmit information of one or more entities within a predetermined range from the current location of the first user terminal” (claim 11), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of user interfaces. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(d). This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Remaining dependent claims 2-5 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable subject matter if revised and amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record has been identified in the Office action mailed July 16, 2025.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Mimassi (US 2021/0201231 A1) discloses a system which coordinates the preparation and delivery of food orders at a business establishment using components which predict food order preparation times, delivery times, and other critical time periods in the food ordering process based on a variety of factors, internal to the business establishment and external to the business establishment, that may affect the food ordering process.
As per claim 9 (representative of claims 1 and 10), the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “receiving, based on a first user terminal associated with a first user performing a search request for one or more entities via an application running on the first user terminal, information of a current location of the first user terminal, acquired using a global positioning system (GPS) built in the first user terminal, from the user terminal; accepting, via the application, a first request for an entity received from the first user terminal upon the first user selecting one or more items from a first list of items that is displayed on a display of the first user terminal, assigning a request identifier (ID) to the first request, and storing the request ID and associated information of the first request in a database; acquiring location information of the entity; acquiring a movement time required for the first user terminal to arrive at the entity, the movement time being based on current location information of the first user terminal, the location information of the entity, and traffic information between locations of the first user terminal and the entity; acquiring an address of one or more second user terminals associated with one or more second users from the database, and transmitting a push notification to the one or more second user terminals via the application running on the one or more second user terminals based on the acquired address, wherein the push notification includes the request ID of the first request, a user ID of the first user, an entity to process a sharing request, and an acceptance period of the sharing request, wherein the acceptance period is determined, in real time, using a GPS signal for the current location of the first user terminal, a preparation time required for the one or more items selected by the first user and included in the first request, and the movement time reflecting the traffic information between the locations of the first user terminal and the entity, wherein the movement time is updated, in real time, using the GPS signal for the current location of the first user terminal and the traffic information; based on the push notification received via the application running on the one or more second user terminals, displaying, on a display of the one or more second user terminals, information included in the push notification together with an indication that the sharing request is available within the acceptance period and a second list of items that can be included in the sharing request given the acceptance period and a preparation time required for each item included in the second list; via selection of one or more items from the second list included in the push notification and displayed on the display of the one or more second user terminals within the acceptance period after the first request is accepted, accepting one or more second requests for the selected one or more items from the one or more second user terminals, in association with the request ID of the first request; associating, as the sharing request, request information relating to the first request and request information relating to the one or more second requests in a request information bundle; transmitting the sharing request relating to the request information bundle to a terminal of the entity; based on a notification indicating that a processing of the sharing request has been completed being received from the terminal of the entity or a pre-designated time related to the sharing request having elapsed, displaying on the display of the first user terminal, and not the one or more second user terminals related to the sharing request, a button to be operated at a time corresponding to the first user being at a pre-designated location, and displaying on the display of the one or more second user terminals, an indication corresponding to the first user pressing the button.” This combination of functions/features would not have been obvious to a PHOSITA in view of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3628