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.
Status of Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 04/20/2026. Currently, claims 21-24, 28-34 and 38-44 are pending. Claims 21, 28, 30 and 38 have been amended. No newly added claims. 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 replenishment 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)
identifying… one or more candidate sales requests corresponding to the identification code; (selecting one or more sales requests)
calculating… a shipping cost for delivering the product based on the delivery destination information…; (determining delivery costs)
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 one of the one or more candidate sales requests, automatically generating and transmitting fulfillment data for initiating delivery of the product to a supplier system or a delivery management system.” (generating and transmitting fulfillment data)
The above limitations recite the steps of, 1) acquiring and storing data (consumption state, purchase request and sales requests), 2) selecting one or more candidate sales requests, 3) determining a shipping cost, 4) processing/comparing the collected/determined data with one or more defined criteria (matching purchase and sales requests), and 4) generating and transmitting fulfillment data (sending fulfillment data).
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)). In addition, the steps of “storing an identification code identifying a product” and “receiving the purchase request generated automatically in response to the acquired information…” describes receiving and storing data, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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)). “Storing information” and “transmitting/sending information over a network” have been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
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]
at least one of the devices comprising a processor configured to perform operations comprising:
storing an identification code identifying a product; [See paragraphs 0094, 0342, 0343 – The seller may also be a buyer within the system upon inventory items falling below a predefined level.]
in response to a determination that the predetermined condition is satisfied, automatically generating a purchase request for purchasing the product and transmitting the purchase request to the matching server via a network, the purchase request including the identification code identifying the product, a desired purchase price of the product and delivery destination information; [See paragraphs 0094, 0117, 01356, 0150, 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:
receiving the purchase request generated automatically in response to the acquired information related to the consumption state of the product; [See paragraphs 0094, 0346, 0361, 0362]
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]
identifying, from amount the sales requests, one or more candidate sales requests corresponding to the identification code; [See paragraphs 0228-0233, 0238, 0247, 0273]
determining whether the purchase request matches one of the one or more candidate sales requests 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 one or more candidate sales requests, automatically generating and transmitting fulfillment data for initiating delivery of the product to a supplier system or a delivery management system. [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, based on a sensing result of a sensor for monitoring the product; and
determining whether a predetermined replenishment condition is satisfied based on the acquired information; and
calculating, for each of the one or more candidate sales requests, 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, based on a sensing result of a sensor for monitoring the product; and [See paragraphs 0028, 0032, 0034, 0036, 0039, 0054, 0058, 0059, 0063-0065]
determining whether a predetermined replenishment 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, for each of the one or more candidate sales requests, 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 the 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.
The claimed invention describes the steps of storing, at a device, product identification code associated with a product and acquiring consumption state associated with the product. In response to determining a replenishment condition associated with the consumption state is satisfied, generating and transmitting a purchase request to a matching server. The matching server receives the purchase request and compares to one or more identified sales requests (including shipping cost) stored on thereon. In response to determining a match, fulfillment data is generated and transmitted to a supplier or delivery system.
The claimed recites the steps of, 1) acquiring and storing data (consumption state, purchase request and sales requests), 2) selecting one or more candidate sales requests, 3) determining a shipping cost, 4) processing/comparing the collected/determined data with one or more defined criteria (matching purchase and sales requests), and 4) generating and transmitting fulfillment data (sending fulfillment data). 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 recited additional elements in the form of one or more computing elements (matching server, one or more devices and sensor) are used for performing the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The computer elements recited represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claimed invention uses computer technology to provide an automated business solution of purchasing an item based on one or more user-defined rules. The additional elements fail to improve the functioning of a computer or technical field.
Preemption concerns have been addressed by the examiner through the application of the two-step framework. A specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim. Questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and ‘those that integrate the building blocks into something more…the latter pose no comparable risk of preemption, and therefore remain eligible.” The absence of complete preemption does not guarantee the claim is eligible. Therefore, “[w]here a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
103 Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 21-23, 28, 29, 31-33, 38 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of Greak in view of Blankenship, and further in view of Shechtman; claims 24 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. §103 Greak in view of Blankenship and Schectman, and further in view of Sakayori; claims 30 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of Greak, Blankenship, and Shechtman, and further in view of Dimino; and claims 42 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of Greak, in view of Blankenship and Shechtman, and further in view of Barron 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.
The system of Greak teaches that, “…[i]t will be noted that the distinction between a seller workstation 80 and a buyer workstation 82 is based only on how the workstation is being used at any particular moment. Just as a user may be both a buyer and a seller by turns, so may the same network node 11 be both a buyer workstation 82 and a seller workstation 80.” (see paragraph 0094). Thus, a seller may be a buyer in the system as described by Greak.
Greak teaches an online updating module that transmits a notification to the inventory updating module, informing the inventory updating module of the identity, quantity, or other information, concerning the product sold. The inventory updating module may use the information sent by the online updating module to update the inventory database (paragraphs 0347-0349).
In addition, Greak teaches a purchasing module that may automate a purchasing process. The purchasing module may monitor changes to the inventory database. The purchasing module may be programmed to purchase more of a product automatically using the system when the inventory database indicates that the amount of the product in the inventory has fallen below a limiting value or in accordance with a predictive equation (paragraph 0361).
The system of Blankenship teaches that, when the inventory level falls below a predetermined threshold, the materials management component automatically identifies the need and initiates a replenishment request (para. [0034], [0069]).
The system of Greak and Blankenship is configured for automatic ordering. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Greak, automatic ordering system, to incorporate such an automatic ordering system of Blankenship.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights