DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
[2] 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 November 2025 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
[3] This communication is in response to the Amendment and the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 10 November 2025. It is noted that this is a Continuation of United States Patent Application Serial No. 15/106,658 filed 20 June 2016, now United States Patent No. 11,410,104, which is a National Stage Entry of PCT/US14/71559 filed 19 December 2014, which benefits from United States Provisional Patent Application Serial Nos. 61/919,034, 61/919,030, 61/919,036, and 61/919,042, filed 20 December 2013. Claims 1-20, 24, 32-33, 35, and 41-81 have been cancelled. Claims 21, 23, 29, 36, and 83-84 have been amended. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 10 November 2025 has been entered and considered. Claims 21-23, 25-31, 34, 36-40, and 82-85 are pending.
Claim Objections
[4] Claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-31, 34, 37-40, and 82-85, 38, and 83 are objected to because of the following informalities:
[i] As presented by amendment, claim 1 recites “…wherein a first sub-task of the first multi-step commerce-related task is modified at a market layer and configured to be applied relative to a first market of multiple different markets of a cross-market orchestration…”. The claim construction indicates that the claimed modifications of the subtask occur in the context of “a cross-market orchestration”. As a method or process claim constitutes a sequence of defined steps, the contingency that the modification to the subtask only occurs in the context of “a cross-market orchestration” does not necessitate the performance of the modifications of subtask associated with markets, as defined by the “wherein” clauses unless the sequence is implemented in “a cross-market orchestration”. Examiner suggests amendment to present the noted “wherein” clauses as actively performed steps in the method and/or into introduce that the application of the claimed method is to “a cross-market orchestration” in the prior lineage of the claim. For purposes of further examination, Examiner assumes the orchestration is “a cross-market orchestration” in which at least the first subtask occurs in a market distinct from other steps/tasks, thus requiring the modification of the sequence to accommodate market-specific rules imposed on the first subtask. Examiner assumes a typographical error or oversight to be corrected on the next response. Appropriate clarification/correction is required.
[ii] Claim 1 recites “…receiving a request in a computer-readable format, from a separate first computing device implementing a point-of-sale (POS) transaction communicating over a communications network…”. As the claim does not introduce a first or other computing device, it is not clear what the computing device is separate from. Examiner assumes the computing device is separate from a device or computing environment executing the orchestration (as stated in claims 11 and 16). Examiner assumes a typographical error or oversight to be corrected on the next response. Appropriate clarification/correction is required.
[iii] Claim 38 recites “a first subtask”. As “a first sub-task” has been introduced in the prior lineage of the claim, it is unclear if the introduction of a second “a first subtask” in claim 38 is intended to identify a new first subtask or is in reference to the previously introduced “a first subtask”. Examiner assumes a typographical error or oversight to be corrected on the next response. Appropriate clarification/correction is required.
[iv] Claim 84 recites “a first subtask”. As “a first sub-task” has been introduced in the prior lineage of the claim, it is unclear if the introduction of a second “a first subtask” in claim 84 is intended to identify a new first subtask or is in reference to the previously introduced “a first subtask”. Examiner assumes a typographical error or oversight to be corrected on the next response. Appropriate clarification/correction is required.
Claims 22-23, 25-28, and 82-85 inherit and fil to remedy the deficiencies of their respective parent claims through dependency and are also objected to for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
[5] Previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-23, 25-31, 34, 36-40, and 82-85 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addala et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0218921 in view of Winter (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0231224) has/have been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are withdrawn
Double Patenting
[6] The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-23, 25-31, 34, 36-40, and 82-85 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,410,104 in view of Addala et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0218921). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are limited to a reordering of limitations included, rewording of limitations, and modifications obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as evidenced by the below discussion and claim chart.
Claim 21 of Pending United States Patent Application Serial No. 17/871,319 (Continuation of United States Patent No. 11,410,104)
Claims 1, 3, and 5 of Issued United States Patent No. 11,410,104 (Parent Application of Pending United States Patent Application Serial No. 17/871,319)
receiving a request in a computer-readable format, from a separate first computing device implementing a point-of-sale (POS) transaction communicating over a communications network, for execution of a first multi-step commerce-related task in a distributed commerce computing environment;
receiving an event orchestration…from a third party system, wherein the distributed computing environment is configured based on the event orchestration… receiving data at a first computing device in response to execution of a first computer process corresponding to a first multi-step commerce related task by a POS terminal, the first computing device and POS terminal communicating over a communications network
identifying a plurality of sub-tasks of the first multi-step commerce-related task, identifying corresponding operational systems each to implement one or more of the plurality of sub-tasks
receiving data…corresponding to a first multi-step commerce related task…over a communications network…the event orchestration invokes services in a particular sequence in support of the first multi-step commerce related task;…performing a predefined sequence of a plurality of software modules… the…sequence of the plurality of software modules is performed while the first multi-step commerce related task is being executed (italicized component from dependent claims 3 and 5)
defining a sequence with which to execute the plurality of sub-tasks to facilitate completion of the first multi-step commerce-related task, wherein the sequence implements a respective series of software components with a plurality of the software components being modular and reused to implement a respective one of the plurality of sub-tasks of two or more different multi-step commerce-related tasks;
the ruleset and events are associated with the first multi-step commerce related task, and the event orchestration invokes services in a particular sequence in support of the first multi-step commerce related task… the predefined sequence of the plurality of software modules is performed while the first multi-step commerce related task is being executed (italicized component from dependent claim 5 – NOTE: software modules are reasonably “modular and reused software components)
programmatically retrieving a task flow…and from a non-transitory computer-readable medium in response to the request and corresponding to the first multi-step commerce-related task, the task flow:
receiving an event orchestration, events, and a ruleset associated with a rule data structure from a third party system, wherein the distributed computing environment is configured based on the event orchestration, the events, and the ruleset… receiving data…corresponding to a first multi-step commerce related task… where the ruleset and events are associated with the first multi-step commerce related task, and the event orchestration invokes services in a particular sequence in support of the first multi-step commerce related task
triggering event orchestration…that invokes services that are each implemented through execution of instructions by at least one of the operational systems in the sequence in support of the first multi-step commerce-related task,
triggering the event orchestration at the first computing device… the event orchestration invokes services in a particular sequence in support of the first multi-step commerce related task… performing a predefined sequence of a plurality of software modules (italicized component from dependent claim 3)
wherein a first sub-task of the first multi-step commerce-related task is modified…wherein the first sub-task is modified by changing a sub-task data structure and the changing includes specifying a…rule set from among multiple different rule sets, to be applied relative to the first multi-step commerce-related task
receiving…a ruleset associated with a rule data structure…wherein the ruleset enables a set of rules to be applied to a specific context…triggering the event orchestration at the first computing device to abort subsequent execution of the first multi-step commerce related task at a second computing device in response to determining that a rule of the set of rules has not been satisfied;
wherein the changing alters…a programmatic behavior of the first multi-step commerce-related task…without modifying a rule data structure of a rule set, and provides an altered sequence in support of the first multi-step commerce-related task…and triggering a first event;
aborting the subsequent execution of a sub-task of the first multi-step commerce related task at the second computing device based on the event orchestration; triggering event orchestration at the first computing device to alter the particular sequence in support of the first multi-step commerce related task without modifying the rule data structure; (NOTE: aborting subsequent execution of a sub-task and altering the particular sequence is reasonably a specific instance of altering a programmatic behavior of the sub-task by altering a sub-task data structure)
executing the altered sequence in support of the first multi-step commerce-related task controlling the at least one of the operational systems invoking at least one of the services and the series of software components in an order of execution to each execute at least one of the plurality of sub-tasks according to the sequence defined by the task flow and the first…rule set in completing the first multi-step commerce-related task
where the ruleset and events are associated with the first multi-step commerce related task, and the event orchestration invokes services in a particular sequence in support of the first multi-step commerce related task…executing the altered sequence in support of the first multi-step commerce related task invoking at least a subsequent sub-task at one of one or more computing devices…performing a predefined sequence of a plurality of software modules… the…sequence of the plurality of software modules is performed while the first multi-step commerce related task is being executed (italicized component from dependent claims 3 and 5)
Pending claim 21 of United States Patent Application Serial No. 17/871,319 (hereinafter ‘319 application) differs from issued claim 1 of United States Patent No. 11,410,104 (hereinafter ‘104 patent) in that the ‘319 application specifies that the commonly recited functions of receiving the event orchestration and triggering event orchestration occur “through an orchestration layer”.
Similarly, claim 21 of ‘319 application differs from claim 1 of ‘104 patent in that the ‘319 application specifies that the commonly claimed designation of a rule set from a plurality of rule sets and the generation of an altered programmed sequence of tasks/subtasks based on modifying behavior of a task/subtask by altering a task data structure without modification of a rule data structure is “…modified at a market layer and configured to be applied relative to a first market of multiple different markets of a cross-market orchestration…” and further that the rule sets are specified and applied “…to a first market of multiple different markets of a cross-market orchestration corresponding to the first market…”.
With respect to generation of an altered programmatic sequence based on a task data structure and market-specific rules, Examiner notes Addala et al.; paragraphs [0071] [0100] [0209] [0284]-[0289]. In the noted paragraphs Addala discloses at least skip steps and cancel steps, i.e., change sequence of computer processes based on service pattern recognition. See further orchestration rules and modifying sequences based on application specific rules, i.e., a task data structure. See further assembly/modification of runtime data tables and structures to dynamically invoke services. Each of these adjustments are reasonably a form of altered sequence.
With respect to the orchestration layer and market layer, Addala et al. disclose that the implementation of assembly and sequence of executable services which are encapsulated, reusable and the executable sequences are implemented by an orchestration layer (Addala et al.; paragraphs [0069] [0072] [0099]-[0101]; See at least orchestration layer and arrangement of re-usable executable processes, i.e., services, which are encapsulated and are invoked across different business processes). Addala et al. further clarify that steps defined by executable sequence are modified by specific rule sets and service sequences associated with both an external interface layer and a global order promising layer (Addala et al.; paragraphs [0076]-[0079] See reuse step data on reused executable process and modification of processes by the external interface layer and the global layer). Examiner notes that both the external interface layer and global order promising layer invoke services specific to order fulfillment by systems external to the orchestration system and in respective separate “global” markets. These layers are reasonably a form of “market layer”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the receiving the event orchestration and triggering event orchestration as recited in claim 1 of ‘104 patent by further including generation of an altered programmatic orchestration via an “orchestration layer” and the generation of an altered programmatic sequence based on a task data structure and market-specific rules by a “market layer” as taught by Addala et al. The instant invention is directed to a system and method for coordinating transaction events in a retail environment. As Addala et al. disclose generation of an altered programmatic sequence based on a task data structure and market-specific rules and implementation of the orchestration through specified application layers in the context of a system and method for coordinating transaction events in a retail environment, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of efficiently coordinating actions and activities associated with retail transactions using readily available standard commercial and application infrastructure.
Claims 29 and 36 of the ‘319 application are directed to a system and computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions and similarly mirror claims 11 and 16 of the ‘104 patent. Dependent claims 22-23, 25-28, 30-31, 34, 37-40, and 82-85 substantially repeat subject matter presented in claims 1-20 of the ‘104 patent. Accordingly, claims 22-23, 25-31, 34, 36-40, and 82-85 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,410,104 in view of Addala et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0218921).
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[7] Applicant's remarks filed 10 November 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] Applicant’s remarks directed to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-23, 25-31, 34, 36-40, and 82-85 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 11 August 2025 have been fully considered and are convincing in light of the present amendments to the pending claims. The previous rejection of pending claims 21-23, 25-31, 34, 36-40, and 82-85 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has/have been overcome by the amendments to the pending claims and is/are withdrawn.
Conclusion
[8] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Procyk et al., PROCESS TRANSFORMATION AND TRANSITIONING APPARATUSES, METHODS, AND SYSTEMS, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0226318: Relevant Teachings: Procyk discloses a system/method that provides dynamic modification of sub-processes with a define process model.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625