DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/04/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This non-final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 09/04/2025. Currently, claims 21-24, 28-34 and 38-44 are pending. Claims 21 and 31 have been amended. Claims 41-44 are newly added. Claims 1-20, 25-27 and 35-37 have been cancelled.
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 21-24, 28-34 and 38-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method and system for automated order placement.
Exemplary claim 21 recites in part,
“…acquiring information related to a consumption state of a product from a target consuming the product; (receiving consumption data)
determining whether a predetermined condition is satisfied based on acquired information; and (comparing received data to predefined condition)
in response to a determination that the predetermined condition is satisfied, automatically generating a purchase request for purchasing the product to transmit…; (generating and transmitting a purchase request)
holding sales requests from one or more suppliers...; (storing received supplier sales request)
calculating a shipping cost for delivering the product based on the delivery destination information…; (determining delivery cost)
determining whether the purchase request matches one of the sales requests in price based on whether the desired purchase price…; and (comparing a purchase price with a total amount)
in response to determination that the purchase request matches the sales requests, automatically proceeding with a delivery process.” (initiating item delivery)
The above limitations recite the steps of, 1) acquiring and storing data (consumption state, purchase request and sales request), 2) determining a shipping cost, 3) processing/comparing the collected/determined data with one or more defined criteria (satisfaction of a predetermined condition), and 4) initiating a process (item delivery).
The above limitations describe the process of purchasing an item based on one or more user-defined rules. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial or legal interactions – sales activities/behavior sales activities/behavior and/or managing personal interaction between people)," enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B)&(C).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the cited claim recites additional elements in the form of computer one or more computing elements (matching server and one or more devices) to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract ideas identified above. The computer elements recited represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to the practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. The computer elements recited represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 21 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 31 recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 21, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 22-24, 28-30, 32-34 and 38-44 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
For example, claims 22-24 and 32-34 describes the data content or type of data in the purchase request. Claims 28-30, 38-40, 42 and 44 describes collecting and transmitting data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-23, 28, 29, 31-33, 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2005/0289039 (Greak) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2010/0262468 (Blankenship et al. – hereinafter Blankenship), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2012/0296759 (Shechtman).
Referring to claim 21, Greak discloses a trading system comprising:
one or more devices connected to the matching server, wherein: [See paragraphs 0081-0091, 0094, Fig. 2]
in response to a determination that the predetermined condition is satisfied, automatically generating a purchase request for purchasing the product to transmit the purchase request to the matching server via a network, the purchase request including a desired purchase price of the product and delivery destination information; [See paragraphs 0117, 0140, 0361-0363, 0133, 0134, 0136, 0193-0195]
a matching server; [See paragraphs 0089, 0094, 0096]
the matching server is configured to perform operations comprising:
holding, in one or more memories, sales requests from one or more suppliers, each of the sales requests including an asking price of the product; [See paragraphs 0029, 0133, 0136, 0238, 0247]
determining whether the purchase request matches one of the sales requests in price based on whether the desired purchase price in the purchase request is equal to or greater than a total amount comprising the asking price and the shipping cost; and [See paragraphs 0228-0233, 0238, 0247, 0273]
in response to a determination that the purchase request matches one of the sales requests in price, automatically proceeding with a delivery process. [See paragraphs 0248, 0249, 0251, 0263]
Greak does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
at least one of the devices comprising a processor configured to perform operations comprising:
acquiring information related to a consumption state of a product from a target consuming the product; and
determining whether a predetermined condition is satisfied based on the acquired information; and
calculating a shipping cost for delivering the product based on the delivery destination information in the purchase request by referring to delivery charge definition information.
Blankenship teaches a system with the limitations:
at least one of the devices comprising a processor configured to perform operations comprising: [See paragraphs 0081-0091, 0094, Fig. 2]
acquiring information related to a consumption state of a product from a target consuming the product; and [See paragraphs 0028, 0032, 0034, 0036, 0039, 0054, 0058, 0059, 0063-0065]
determining whether a predetermined condition is satisfied based on the acquired information. [See paragraphs 0032, 0034, 0054, 0055]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Greak to have incorporated an inventory monitoring process as in Blankenship with the motivation of monitoring consumables and executing a replenishment process. [See Greak paragraph 0361; Blankenship paragraphs 0008-0011]
Shechtman teaches a system with the limitation: calculating a shipping cost for delivering the product based on the delivery destination information in the purchase request by referring to delivery charge definition information. [See paragraphs 0064, 0066, 0069, 0071 – The shipping cost is based on the quantity of items and shipping methods and costs defined in the shipping table.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of the combination of Greak and Blankenship to have incorporated a shipping definition table as in Shechtman with the motivation of executing a purchase transaction based on pricing criteria. [See Greak paragraphs 0227-0231, 0361; Shechtman paragraphs 0051, 0079-0081]
Referring to claim 22, the combination of Greak, Blankenship and Shechtman discloses the trading system according to claim 21, wherein the purchase request includes a quantity of the products desired to be purchased. [See Greak paragraphs 0133, 0136, 0158, 0159]
Referring to claim 23, the combination of Greak, Blankenship and Shechtman discloses the trading system according to claim 21, wherein the purchase request includes a delivery deadline. [See Greak paragraph 0247]
Referring to claim 28, the combination of Greak, Blankenship and Shechtman discloses the trading system according to claim 21, wherein at least one of the devices includes a sensor that senses a remaining amount of the product. [See Blankenship paragraphs 0028, 0036, 0041, 0043]
Referring to claim 29, the combination of Greak, Blankenship and Shechtman discloses the trading system according to claim 21, wherein the operations of the at least one of the devices comprise attaching an electronic signature to the purchase request. [See Blankenship paragraphs 0066, 0067]
Referring to claims 31-33, 38 and 39, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 21-23, 28 and 29, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Referring to claim 41, the combination of Greak, Blankenship and Shechtman discloses the trading system according to claim 21, wherein the delivery charge definition information defines a delivery charge for each product based on a distance between a supplier and a delivery destination indicated by the delivery destination information in the purchase request. [See Greak paragraphs 0030, 0219; Shechtman paragraph 0066 – The shipping cost is calculated based on one or more parameters including distance (between buyer and seller destination). A delivery charge definition may be based on size, weight, delivery method, etc.]
Referring to claim 43, it recites similar limitation as set forth in claim 41, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Claims 24 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greak in view of Blankenship and Shectman, as applied to claims 23 and 33 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0265486 (Sakayori).
Referring to claim 24, the combination of Greak, Blankenship and Shechtman discloses the trading system according to claim 23 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the delivery deadline is determined based on the acquired information.
Sakayori teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the delivery deadline is determined based on the acquired information. [See paragraphs 0077-0079, 0086-0094]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of the combined teachings of Greak, Blankenship and Shechtman to have incorporated a purchase support apparatus as in Sakayori with the motivation of monitoring consumables and executing a purchase at a desired price based on diminishing inventory levels. [See Sakayori paragraphs 0005, 0006]
Referring to claim 34, it recites similar limitation as set forth in claim 24, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Claims 30 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greak in view of Blankenship and Shechtman, as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2017/0337504 (Dimino, JR. et al. – hereinafter Dimino).
Referring to claim 30, the combination of Greak, Blankenship and Shechtman discloses the trading system according to claim 21 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the at least one of the devices is configured to communicate with the matching server using an authenticated IP address of the device.
Dimino teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the at least one of the devices is configured to communicate with the matching server using an authenticated IP address of the device. [See paragraphs 0077-0082, 0090]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of the combined teachings of Greak, Blankenship and Shechtman to have incorporated a purchase support apparatus as in Dimino with the motivation of monitoring and replenishing inventory when a predetermined condition is satisfied. [See Dimino paragraphs 0077-0082, 0090]
Referring to claim 40, it recites similar limitation as set forth in claim 30, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Claims 42 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greak in view of Blankenship and Shechtman, as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0302451 (Barron et al. – hereinafter Barron).
Referring to claim 42, the combination of Greak, Blankenship and Shechtman discloses the trading system according to claim 21 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein at least one of the devices comprises a global navigation satellite system configured to acquire positional information, and the delivery destination information included in the purchase request is based on the acquired positional information.
Baron teaches a system with the limitation: wherein at least one of the devices comprises a global navigation satellite system configured to acquire positional information, and the delivery destination information included in the purchase request is based on the acquired positional information. [See paragraphs 0016, 0024]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of the combined teachings of Greak, Blankenship and Shechtman to have incorporated a customer information acquisition process as in Barron with the motivation of delivering purchased items according to acquired customer information. [See Barron paragraphs 0016, 0024; Greak paragraph 0117]
Referring to claim 44, it recites similar limitation as set forth in claim 42, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
In Example 41 of the USPTO Guidance, it was explained that “the combination of additional elements in the claim (receiving the plaintext word signal at the first computer terminal, transforming the plaintext word signal to one or message block word signals MA, and transmitting the encoded ciphertext word signal CA to the second computer terminal over a communication channel) integrates the exception into a practical application. In particular, the combination of additional elements uses the mathematical formulas and calculations in a specific manner (converting plaintext word signal to encoded ciphertext word signal for transmission) that sufficiently limits the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical application of transmitting the ciphertext word signal to a computer terminal over a communication channel”.
In the present application, the recited additional elements (matching server and one or more devices) receives one or more data (consumption information, purchase request), compares the received information with stored data and one or more rules (predefined condition and sale requests) and determines an output. The additional elements including “one or more memories” and “network” define computer elements for performing well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions of storing and transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)
The additional element of “automatically proceeding with a delivery process” based on the result of the desired purchase price to total amount comparison amounts to post-solution activity that does not impose meaningful limits on claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The recited additional elements in the form of one or more computing elements (matching server and one or more devices) are used for performing the limitations encompassing the abstract ideas identified above. The computer elements recited represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
103 Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 21-23, 25-29, 31-33, and 35-39 under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of Greak and Blankenship; claims 24 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of Blankenship and Sakayori; and claims 30 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of Greak, Blankenship, and Dimino have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that some of Applicant’s arguments are directed to newly added claims and have been addressed in the updated rejection.
In addition, the system of Greak teaches that “…[[a]] buyer may post a purchase request record indicating the product sought, the quantity sought, and the price the buyer is willing to pay. A seller may post a product record indicating the product sold, the quantity for sale, and the price.” Paragraph 0027. Greak teaches that “[[a]] purchase request 132 may include shipping data 194. Shipping data 194 may include an address or like information sufficient to allow a sender to ship a package to the user identified by the buyer identifier 192. Shipping data 194 may also indicate the shipping method to be used (e.g. air, ground, FEDEX, or other courier)”. See paragraph 01040. Accordingly, the system of Greak teaches “transmitting the purchase request to the matching server via a network, the purchase request including a desired purchase price of the product and delivery destination information”.
Greak teaches that “[[t]]he matching module 340 may take into account factors besides the pricing data 184, 220 in deciding which records 132, 134 to match with one another. For example, the matching module 340 may take into account the cost of shipping. Thus, a purchase request record 132 may be matched with a product record 134 whose price and shipping costs match the pricing data 184 of the purchase request record 132. In some embodiments of the system 92, all buyers will be charged identical shipping costs to allow ready cost comparison and to streamline transactions. Nevertheless, the matching module 340 may still take into account shipping costs when matching records 132, 134 to improve the efficiency of the market and avoid unnecessary shipping costs.” Paragraph 0231. Accordingly, the system of Greak teaches “determining whether the purchase request matches one of the sales requests in price based on whether the desired purchase price in the purchase request is equal to or greater than a total amount comprising the asking price and the shipping cost”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627