DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Action is in response to App. 19/379,108 filed 11/04/2025. Claims 1-20 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the concept of managing commercial interactions through incentivizing different pickup times for purchase fulfillment. The invention receives an order including items for pickup at a fulfilment location and determines operational condition of the location reaches a threshold. The invention then generates an incentive including a different timeframe which mitigates the threshold condition and transmits the incentive and timeframe to a user device. The invention then receives confirmation of timeframe selection from the user and later receives location and time information of the user device having reached the fulfillment location. The invention then determines the location and time information satisfies the incentive time frame and provides confirmation of incentive qualification.
The limitation of receiving order information, determining conditions, generating incentive, receiving confirmation and location, determining timeframe satisfaction, and providing/transmitting, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “server system” and “computing device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the reciting “server system” and “computing device” language, “receiving”, “transmitting”, and “providing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person reading/hearing information and communicating information. Similarly, the limitation of “determining” and “generating”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “server system” and “computing device” language, “determining” and “generating “in the context of this claim encompasses the person thinking about busy times at a store (such as after work or on weekends), thinking of a discount for future orders for less busy times (providing a $5 off coupon for weekday pickup), and recognizing the location and time information meet preset time conditions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is directed towards a certain method of organizing human activity, specifically commercial interactions. As currently claimed, the invention is directed towards providing targeted offers to incentivize particular consumer actions and managing a transaction. This is similar to In re Maucorps and OIP Technology as the claimed invention is directed towards utilizing calculations to optimize a business function and further providing offers/incentives. As such, the Examiner further asserts the claimed invention is directed towards a certain method of organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of a server system and computing device to perform the steps. The server system and computing device comprising processor and memory is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of sending/receiving information, generating information based on rules/calculations, and comparing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim 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 of using a processor 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 claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims are further directed towards the judicial exception without significantly more. The dependent claims provide limitations on additional abstract rules (such as claims 2-3, 8 ), additional commercial offer characteristics (such as claim 4), additional well-understood, routine, and conventional function/features of generic computers (such as claim 5), and additional definitions regarding the particular model/instructions for execution by the generic hardware (such as claims 6-7). These are still directed towards the judicial exception as these further define the abstract elements and additional well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. They are not significantly more as they do not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The dependent claims is not patent eligible.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
As currently claimed, the invention receives order information including one or more items for pickup at a fulfillment location and determining one or more operational conditions of the fulfillment location including at least one of storage utilization, temperature conditions, and traffic condition of the drive-up queue. The invention further determines if the operational conditions meet/exceed a threshold, and generates an incentive associated with a pickup timeframe which mitigates the threshold condition. The invention then transmits the incentive including the pickup timeframe to a computing device and receives confirmation indicating selection of the pickup timeframe. The invention then receives a location update indicating arrival time of the computing device at the fulfillment location and determines the arrival time satisfies the pickup timeframe. The invention then provides a confirmation that the user qualifies for the incentive.
The Examiner notes the following reference(s):
Wason et al. (US 20220101257 A1), which talks about demand shaping for pickup time slots including ranking/rating individual time slots based on historical and current information, and incentivizing selection of alternative time slots.
Rajkhowa et al. (US 20190012638 A1), which talks about managing demand distribution using incentives and queue time estimates.
Montague (US 11023957 B1), which talks about mobile merchant fulfillment including managing fulfillment through pickup.
Harris et al. (US 20150278759 A1), which talks about vehicle delivery tracking and management including load management and consideration such as storage volume and temperature.
Although the above-references does teach the concept of managing order fulfillment including incentivizing alternative time slots for pickup, these references do not teach/suggest the concept of determining operational conditions and threshold comparisons as currently claimed, specifically the operational condition of storage space utilization, temperature for perishable goods, or traffic at the fulfillment location queue. Upon further search and consideration, although references such as Harris does discuss tracking elements such as perishability and volume, these reference(s), alone or in combination, does not teach/suggest these to be used as a operation condition for a location. As such, the Examiner has determined the invention to be non-obvious over the prior art.
The Examiner further notes although the present claims are conceptually similar to Parent App. 18/414,895 as both inventions are directed towards incentives for pickup times, the present claims are not subject to a non-statutory double patenting rejection. Although the two applications share similar concepts, the present claims are not anticipated/made obvious by the parent claims as the parent claims do not recite concepts such as the operational conditions of the location, the threshold comparison, and the incentives based on mitigating the threshold. As such, the present claims are not subject to a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT M CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11-7.
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, ILANA SPAR can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/VINCENT M CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
