Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/8/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
This is a NONFINAL office action on the merits in application number 17/810,278. This action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments dated 7/8/2026. Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 16 and 19 were amended and no claims were cancelled. Claims 1-21 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 USC 101 rejection:
Applicant asserts on page 19, top, that Applicant’s claims “cannot be performed in the mind of a human or with a pen and paper and is not a mental process”. Examiner notes that they did not assert that Applicant’s claims were directed to an abstract idea in the category of “mental process”, only in the categories Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the sub-category of commercial or legal interactions and in the category of Mathematical Concepts. MPEP2106.03 describes the different categories of abstract ideas.
Applicant asserts on page 19, bottom, to page 20, center, that the claimed invention does not fall into any of “the enumerated subgroupings of fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance or mitigating risk”. Examiner notes that they did not assert that Applicant’s claims were directed to an abstract idea in the category of “the enumerated subgroupings of fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance or mitigating risk”, only in the categories Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the sub-category of commercial or legal interactions and in the category of Mathematical Concepts. MPEP2106.03 describes the different categories of abstract ideas.
Applicant asserts on page 20, bottom, that the claimed invention does not fall into any of “the enumerated subgroupings” of “fundamental economic principals or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people”. Examiner notes that they did not assert that Applicant’s claims were directed to an abstract idea in the category of “fundamental economic principles or practice” or “managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people”. As discussed in the 35 USC 101 rejection, infra, and in previous office actions, Examiner asserts that Applicant’s claims are directed to an abstract idea only in the categories Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the sub-category of commercial or legal interactions and also in the category of Mathematical Concepts. MPEP2106.03 describes the different categories of abstract ideas. As discussed in the 35 USC 101 rejection, infra, Applicant recites the common commercial interaction and marketing or sales activity of a merchant sourcing products to fulfill an order and the merchant selecting a particular source or combination of sources to maximize the profits of their business. This is an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the sub-category of commercial or legal interactions because it is a commercial interaction and is a common marketing or sales activity. MPEP 2106.04(a) specifically lists “commercial interactions” including “marketing or sales activity” in the enumerated groupings section. Examiner holds that everything Applicant claims doing is for the express purpose of lowering costs and improving profit when they source orders from various locations in various combinations. The central feature of Applicant’s claims is creating a matrix with data that is weighted by estimated earnings and avoiding too many split shipments to reduce costs and outputting the location-item combination that maximizes profit. There is no other use for this invention, only to maximize profit. Applicant deliberately manipulates the data to avoid automatically shipping from the closest store, instead he manipulates the data for the sole purpose of maximizing profit.
Applicant asserts on page 21, center, that Examiner’s analysis did not provide “any citations” or “legal authority”. Applicant appears to be using the wrong standard of review. MPEP 2106.04(a) recites “To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types”. As directed by the MPEP, Examiner is using the MPEP to examine Applicant’s disclosure, Examiner has no requirement to cite case law.
Applicant asserts on page 21, bottom, that “Rather, the claimed invention is directed to a specific computer-implemented process for order fulfillment that includes successive data structure reductions; generating rearranged, reduced, ordered data structures; performing weighted objective optimization; and transmitting electronic instructions to facilities all of which are technical operations, not financial management practices”. Examiner disagrees. Applicant recites in their specification at [06] to [07] that the problem that they are trying to solve relates to “profitability of an order” and “there is a need for an improved order fulfillment system, especially where this system increase profitability and reduces the number of splits”. Applicant does not state or imply anywhere in the specification any goal or purpose relating to improving a computer or other technology. The “successive data structure reductions” etc. are merely a means to the end of maximizing profit. Applicant is not doing calculations for the shear joy of doing calculations, nor to advance science nor to improve the art of doing calculations nor to demonstrate a new and original kind of calculation. Applicant does not specifically claim resolving a logistics problem (i.e. problems involving obstacles to the planning, coordinating and moving of goods) and the claims are certainly not directed to resolving a specific logistics problem. Applicant uses the well known mathematical optimization tool of linear programing for the purpose for which it is intended – to iteratively narrow solution sets to find the “best” solution, given constraints. Applicant did not invent linear programming and does not improve linear programming itself, Applicant is merely using this common tool in a generic way to solve a business problem. Applicant’s claimed manipulation of data is directed solely to maximizing the profit of a commercial interaction - for all of the items in a particular e-commerce order Applicant claims gathering, weighting and sorting combinations of items and sources to solve a business problem not a technical problem.
Applicant asserts on page 22, center, that the claims do not fall into the enumerated groupings. See above.
Applicant asserts on page 22, bottom, that their invention “improves the functioning of a computer by reducing the memory footprint… and reducing the compute power”. Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(a) defines the requirements for improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field and states “the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology… the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification… It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements”. In this case Applicant does not claim “computer storage”, “processing requirements” and “memory footprint”. Applicant further does not describe in the specification any technical detail that would lead to determining an amount of “computer storage”, “processing requirements” and “memory footprint” before their “improvement” nor an amount of “computer storage”, “processing requirements” and “memory footprint” after their “improvement”. Applicant does not disclose any specific tools to even measure a reduction or improvement in these items. Applicant claims listing all of the company’s facilities then removing some of them from the list because they do not have enough of the product to supply the order. Applicant then calculates profit and removes more facilities from the list because supplying from some facilities is not profitable enough. MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) provides examples of fact patterns that are “not sufficient to show an improvement to computer-functionality” (Citing FairWarning): “ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer”. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) discusses “Improvements to Any Other Technology or Technical Field” and (citing Trading Technologies) states “the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology”. The same section provides examples of provides examples of fact patterns that are “not sufficient to show an improvement to technology” (citing Alice) “i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer” and (citing TLI Communications) “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result”. Applicant’s “reduction of memory footprint” and “reduction of comput(ing) power” are: 1) not a result of any additional elements, 2) come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and, 3) while they may improve data, they do not improve any technology.
Applicant asserts on page 24, that their invention “improves (1) specific data structure transformation that improves processing efficiency, (2) specific data arrangement (or rearrangement) technique that enables further improvement or optimization of multiple objective functions, and (3) a specific process, rather than a generically recited "machine learning model" or "linear programming model", for solving optimization problems such as a cover problem”. Examiner disagrees. Applicant may improve the data in a data structure but they do not improve the data structure itself. They recite simple sorting (rearrangement) of lines in a table based on values in the rows, this is not an “improvement”, this is how tables were invented (by someone else) to function. Applicant claims weighting specific boxes in the table for constraints that effect a business strategy to maximize profit. Applicant claims “further improvement” of objective functions, iterative improvement is inherently how linear programming and machine learning work. Applicant says they claim a specific process but do not claim any technical details beyond those inherent in well known general purpose tools that would make it actually specific. Applicant further asserts they effect the “transformation of data”. Examiner notes that Applicant merely recites transforming data into a subset of the data and not into “a different state or thing”.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Amended Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant has amended to add the phrase “predicting future earnings data using a machine learning model that is trained at least on historical data, markdown information, and the inventory data”. (Examiner’s emphasis). There does not appear to be support in Applicant’s specification for this element. Applicant describes in [0113] using a “gradient boosting tree based machine learning technique” to “predict future discount” (Examiner’s emphasis) but this section is silent with respect to using a machine learning model to predict future earnings data, with respect to using a pretrained machine learning model, or with respect to performing any training on a machine learning model. Applicant also states in [0157] “the order fulfillment system and flow is implemented as a linear program. Linear programming can be considered a subcategory of machine learning (ML)”. Applicant does appear to use the term “machine learning” anywhere else in the specification and does not appear to use the terms: train, training, trained, history, historical, mark down, markdown, or inventory data in context within their originally filed specification. 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.
Examiner is using the “step” annotation from the flowchart of MPEP 2106 (III), and MPEP 2106.04 and MPEP 2106.05 for clarity.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Independent Claims 1 and 8 and dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 recite a method (process) and Independent Claim 16 and dependent claims 17-21 recite a system that includes a server (machine) thereby Claims 1-21 fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1:
Claim 16 will be used as exemplary. Examiner has bolded the non-abstract elements. Examiner has also added interpretation to assist the Applicant in understanding the rejection. Applicant recites the following elements in Claim 16 (and similarly in Claims 1 and 8):
(currently amended) A system comprising: a website presenting information of at least a first item and a second item for placing online orders;
** Examiner is interpreting this element to be a website presenting information for e-commerce and is interpreting it to be part of the abstract idea.
a plurality of facilities available to fulfill an online order, the plurality of facilities comprising: a first retail store comprising a first inventory of the first item and no inventory of the second item, a second retail store comprising a second inventory of the first item and no inventory of the second item, and a first distribution center comprising no inventory of the first item and a third inventory of the second item;
** Examiner is interpreting that, in the context of this claim, that retail stores and distribution centers have no function except as names of locations where inventory is located. The inventory itself has no function, Applicant appears to be just claiming the existence or absence of an item at a location, which is abstract.
a network connecting each of the plurality of facilities to an order fulfillment server that routes order information of the online order to the plurality of facilities for fulfilling the online order;
** Examiner is interpreting that the network is broadly claimed and, in context, just provides data input to the function of the claim.
an order fulfillment server receiving (1) the online order from the website through the network and (2) a list structure stored in memory for splitting the online order into shipment of two or more packages from two or more facilities of the plurality of facilities and for electronically notifying the plurality of facilities of the two or more packages for the online order, wherein the online order comprises a first quantity of the first item and a second quantity of the second item, and the list structure comprises a plurality of facility entries each respectively corresponding to a facility of the plurality of facilities and a capacity value for the facility;
** Examiner is interpreting that “an online order” is data and “a list structure” is data. The statements “for splitting…” and “for electronically notifying…” are intended use (see at least MPEP 2111.02 and MPEP 2114). The content of an online order (a first quantity of the first item and a second quantity of the second item) is also data. The content of the list structure (names of facilities and their capacity) is also data.
the order fulfillment server executing a first set of instructions that successively reduces a total number of the plurality of facilities in the list structure first into a first reduced list structure smaller than the list structure based at least in part upon a capacity respectively corresponding to a first facility, then into a second reduced list structure smaller than the first reduced list structure based at least in part upon an inventory protection value corresponding to a second facility, and subsequently into a third-reduced list structure smaller than the second reduced list structure based at least in part upon an inventory value and the inventory protection value of a third facility, and that further generates a plurality of facility-item combinations to fulfill the online order;
** Examiner is interpreting that the list structure is data and the reduced list structure is still data and the second and third reduced list structures are still data. Applicant is claiming removing items of data from a list of data to create a smaller list of data.
the order fulfillment server generating a rearranged, reduced, ordered data structure at least by reducing an ordered data structure that stores the plurality of facility-item combinations using at least the third reduced list structure, wherein a facility entry in a first field for a facility in the rearranged, reduced, ordered data structure is correlated with one or more respective entries in one or more separate fields for facility-item combinations in the rearranged, reduced, ordered data structure that is further ordered by earnings data;
** Examiner is interpreting that an “ordered data structure” is data and appears to be a look-up table of facilities and items. Applicant appears to claim the content of fields (facility entry) which is also data. Applicant appears to claim sorting the look-up table by earnings data. A sorted table is still data.
the order fulfillment server executing a set of instructions that executes an order fulfillment plan for the online order at least by improving a first objective and a weighted second objective using at least a looping process that iteratively loops through the rearranged, reduced, ordered data structure, wherein improving the first objective and the weighted second objective using at least the looping process iteratively looping through the rearranged, reduced, ordered data structure comprises: adjusting the inventory protection value using at least a dynamic calculation when a constraint is satisfied;
** Examiner is interpreting that Applicant claims a software program (not claimed with any technical detail or specific algorithms or source code) iterating over the data in the sorted look-up table and “improving” the data by assigning a high “protection value” to certain facility-item lines in the table (to protect items that are new or should not be depleted from stores). Assigning a high “protection value” means increasing a number in a box of the look-up table to use in subsequent calculations.
predicting future earnings data using a machine learning model that is trained at least on historical data, markdown information, and the inventory data;
** Examiner is interpreting that, as discussed above, there does not appear to be support for this element in the specification. From the claim language alone, however, this appears to be simply a general purpose machine learning model with the input of historical data, markdown information, and the inventory data which outputs data of predicted future earnings. Since there is no technical detail nor special function nor special use of this model and no improvement to the model itself (see Ex parte des Jardins), it appears while the model may be a non-limiting additional element, the input and output data and the use of the model are part of the abstract idea.
determining a respective weight for each item of the multiple items in each facility-item combination corresponding to a facility in the rearranged, reduced, ordered data structure based at least in part upon the future earnings data pertaining to the each facility-item combination; and weighting a second objective by the respective weight into the weighted second objective, wherein the first objective aims at the future earnings data predicted by the machine learning model for the facility represented by the each facility-item combination,
** Examiner is interpreting that determining a weight… based in part on the future earnings data, in the context of this claim, means that one factor in selecting a facility-item combination is prioritizing items with higher calculated future earnings data with the effect of prioritizing these items. Applicant claims determining the amount of the mathematical factor, such as a multiplier, that will be combined with the numbers representing items to effect this prioritization. Applicant is claiming a mathematical calculation on data.
and executing the order fulfillment plan that determines an order of the plurality of facility-item combinations in the rearranged, reduced, ordered data structure at least by improving both the first objective and the weighted second objective, using at least the machine learning model, wherein the second objective aims at reducing or minimizing a total number of split shipments for the online order, and the order fulfillment plan is used to generate electronic instructions for fulfilling the online order;
** Examiner is interpreting that that the second factor is minimizing the number of split shipments and, similar to the above, claims determining the amount of a mathematical factor to be combined with the numbers representing items to effect this prioritization. Applicant is claiming a mathematical calculation on data. Applicant claims outputting an order fulfillment plan that reflects the calculated preference of facilities-item pairs.
and the order fulfillment server fulfilling the online order at least by extracting and routing a first electronic instruction of the electronic instructions that includes information about the second quantity of the second item from the online order via the network to a distribution center computing device of the first distribution center, and further at least by extracting and routing a second electronic instruction of the electronic instructions that includes information about the first quantity of the first item to a first retail store computing device of the first retail store, instead of the second retail store, based at least in part upon a comparison between the first in- memory representation of the earnings data or the future earnings data of the first retail store and the earnings data or the future earnings data of a second retail store.
** Examiner is interpreting this as outputting the fulfillment plan to the places where the items are located.
Examiner has bolded the non-abstract elements.
In Claim 16 (and similarly in Claims 1 and 8) Applicant recites the common commercial interaction and marketing or sales activity of a merchant sourcing products to fulfill an order and the merchant selecting a particular source or combination of sources to maximize the profits of their business. This is an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the sub-category of commercial or legal interactions because it is a common commercial interaction and marketing or sales activity. Similarly Independent Claims 1 and 8 also recite the same abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-15 and 17-21 also recite the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 8 and 16, respectively. Accordingly Claims 1-21 recite an abstract idea.
Further, Claims 7 and 19 also recite an abstract idea in the category of Mathematical Concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) states that “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers” and “can be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) provides examples of mathematical calculations such as “using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client”. In Claim 7 Applicant recites: “determining the… value” and “using…a product of the first component and the second component” and “reducing (a quantity of facilities) by applying the product of the first component and the second component”. In Claim 19 Applicant recites: “adjusting…value…by multiplying… value by (a factor)… to obtain… value…wherein (one value) is greater than (another value)”. Claims 7 and 19 recite an abstract idea in the category of Mathematical Concepts.
Step 2A, prong 2:
In addition to the abstract ideas discussed above, Claim 16 also recites the additional elements of: facilities/retail store/distribution center, order fulfillment server, website, network, (server) memory, distribution center computing device, retail store computing device and machine learning model.
Claim 16 recites that “facilities” are comprised of “retail store(s)” and a “distribution center”. Applicant describes “retail stores” at a high level of generality in the specification at [79] as a general purpose retail store that has “floor space for customers who shop at the store to see and try on the garments and other products being sold there”. Applicant does not describe any technical details or add any meaningful limitations that would limit the normal function of a retail store of displaying products for sale. Applicant describes “distribution center” in the specification at [10] as a location that stores products that “replenish inventory at the retail stores and to fulfill online orders”. Applicant does not describe any technical details or add any meaningful limitations that would limit the normal function of a distribution center of storing and distributing goods.
Claim 16 recites “order fulfillment server”. Applicant describes “order fulfillment server” in the specification at [09], [11], 14-15] and describes a “server” in [32] and Figs 1 and 2. Applicant’s “order fulfillment server” is described as a general purpose computer without any detailed technical disclosure of any special features or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. Applicant recites in [36] that “the present invention is not limited to any computing device in a specific form factor… but can included all types of computing devices in various form factors” and lists multiple computer technologies. The order fulfillment server is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer.
Claim 16 recites a “website”. Applicant describes “web site” in [70] and [167] of the specification as a general purpose e-commerce website without any detailed technical disclosure of any special features or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. The “web site” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose software construct.
Claim 16 recites a “network”. Applicant describes “network” in the specification at [27] and [47] and Fig 1 and further describes this in [29] as one of many possible electronic network technologies. Applicant recites a general purpose electronic network without any detailed technical disclosure of any special features or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. The “network” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose electronic network.
Claim 16 recites a (server) “memory”. Applicant describes (server) “memory” in [39-42] of the specification and describes this in [39] as one of many possible electronic memory technologies. Applicant describes this element as a general purpose computer memory without any detailed technical disclosure of any special features or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. Applicant’s “memory” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer memory.
Claim 16 recites a “distribution center computing device” and “retail store computing device”. Applicant does not appear to recite either of these elements in their specification. Applicant recites [61] “the fulfillment plan is sent to the facilities, where the order is picked and packed and shipped to the customer 467” and [62] “This notification to store is given by, e.g., a mobile app to fulfill the order”. Applicant does not specifically disclose a computing device in a distribution center or a computing device in a retail store. This element is assumed to be a general purpose computer without any detailed technical disclosure of any special features or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. Applicant recites in [36] that “the present invention is not limited to any computing device in a specific form factor… but can included all types of computing devices in various form factors” and lists multiple computer technologies. The distribution center computing device and retail store computing device are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer.
Claims 16 has been amended to now claim a “machine learning model”. A discussed in the 35 USC 112a rejection, Applicant does not appear to describe a machine learning model in context in their specification. This element is assumed to be a general purpose pretrained model without any detailed technical disclosure of any special features or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. Even if Applicant meant a Linear Programming model, Applicant does not appear to improve the underlying model or solve a technical problem affecting the model itself, thus Applicant’s “machine learning model” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose software construct.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) recites Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision)(precedential) and states that the claims in this case recited an abstract idea in the category of mathematical concepts but also claimed an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates to solve the technical problem of “catastrophic forgetting” within the machine learning model and this technical improvement integrated the abstract idea into a practical application.
MPEP 2106.05(f) states that merely adding a general purpose computer or computer components to an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. Further, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”.
“Facility”, “facilities” and “particular facility” are also recited in Claims 1-4. “Retail store” is also recited in Claims 1, 6, 8-13 and 17. “Distribution Center” is also recited in Claims 1 and 8. “Order fulfillment server” is also recited in Claims 1, 8, 9, 17 and 18. “Website” is also recited in Claim 8. “Network” is also recited in Claims 1 and 8. “Memory” is also recited in Claims 1 and 17. “Distribution center computing device” or “retail store computing device” are not recited in any other claims. Claim 8 also recites “computing device of a customer” and this is described, as above, as a general purpose computer without any detailed technical disclosure of any special features or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. No other additional elements are claimed.
The facilities/retail store/distribution center, order fulfillment server, website, network, (server) memory, distribution center computing device, retail store computing device and machine learning model are not significantly more and they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1- 21 are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Further, Claims 7 and 19 do not recite any additional elements thus Claims 7 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea in the category of Mathematical Concepts.
Step 2B: As discussed above, Applicant claims the abstract idea of the common commercial interaction and marketing or sales activity of a merchant sourcing products to fulfill an order and the merchant selecting a particular source or combination of sources to maximize the profits of their business. Applicant also recites a facilities/retail store/distribution center, order fulfillment server, website, network, (server) memory, distribution center computing device, retail store computing device and machine learning model.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A, the claimed facilities/retail store/distribution center, order fulfillment server, website, network, (server) memory, distribution center computing device, retail store computing device and machine learning model are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer systems and software constructs. MPEP 2106.05(f) states that merely adding a general purpose computer or computer components to an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more, thus facilities/retail store/distribution center, order fulfillment server, website, network, (server) memory, distribution center computing device, retail store computing device and machine learning model are not significantly more.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A, the claimed additional elements of facilities/retail store/distribution center, order fulfillment server, website, network, (server) memory, distribution center computing device, retail store computing device and machine learning model, alone or in combination with the rest of the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technological field. The additional element alone or in combination with the rest of the claim does not apply the judicial exception to a particular (non-general purpose) machine. The additional elements alone or in combination with the rest of the claim do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Applicant does not claim or teach in their specification any special purpose hardware or improvements thereof. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-15 and 17-21 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 8 and 16, respectively and further limit the abstract idea. Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the capacity and contains the same abstract idea by virtue of its dependency on Claim 1. Claims 3-4, 6-7, 13-15, and 17-21 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the inventory protection value and contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 8 and 16, respectively. Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the inventory and contains the same abstract idea by virtue of its dependency on Claim 1. Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the location of facilities and contains the same abstract idea by virtue of its dependency on Claim 8. Claims 10 and 12 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the cost of goods sold and contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1. Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the selection and contains the same abstract idea by virtue of its dependency on Claim 8.
Further, Applicant does not recite additional elements or significantly more than the abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts in Claims 7 and 9 thus Claims 7 and 9 are not patent eligible.
Claims 1-21 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY S BURSUM whose telephone number is (571)272-8213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Florian (Ryan) m Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/KIMBERLY S. BURSUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights