DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final office action is in response to application 17/710808 filed on 5/13/2021. IDS filed 11/15/2022 has been considered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8, 15 recite “a predetermine range” where it should recite “a predetermined range.”
Claims 3, 10, 17 recite “responsive to the not receiving the second order within the predefined timeframe, shipping the first order” where it should recite “responsive to not receiving the second order within the predefined timeframe, shipping the first order.”
Claim 4 recites “displaying, by a client device, a responsive prompt to that queries the user to consent to a consolidation the first order and the second order” where it should recite “displaying, by a client device, a responsive prompt that queries the user to consent to a consolidation of the first order and the second order.”
Claims 6, 13, 20 recite “executing a hold command that instructs a fulfillment center or shipping center to hold a shipment or fulfilment of the first order for predetermined time, with respect to the predefined timeframe, so that that the second order and the first order can be consolidated” where it should recite “executing a hold command that instructs a fulfillment center or shipping center to hold a shipment or fulfilment of the first order for a predetermined time, with respect to the predefined timeframe, so that the second order and the first order can be consolidated.”
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.
Claims 1-14 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method, system). Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 15-20 the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to a signal per se. Examiner recommends and interprets, for purposes of compact prosecution, claim 16 to recite a “non-transitory” element.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-7 are directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”). Claims 8-14 are directed toward the statutory category of a machine (reciting a “system”). Claims 15-20 are directed toward the statutory category of an article of manufacturer (reciting a “non-transitory computer readable medium”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea by reciting receiving, by…, a first order associated with a user; determining, within predetermine range of confidence, that a second order associated with the user will be received within a predefined timeframe; and delaying the shipment of the first order, for a predetermined amount of time, based on the determination the second order will be received, wherein delaying the shipment of the first order comprises: executing a hold command that withholds the first order from a distribution center for the predetermined amount of time; and responsive to receiving the second order within the predefined timeframe, consolidating the first order and the second order into a consolidated order (Example Claim 1).
The claims are considered abstract because overall these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity like commercial interactions (including sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claims recite operational business rules to optimize order fulfilment, which are commercial interactions. Additionally, the claims recite a mental process because there are no details as to how the “determining” a second order will be received is made. It is understood that the claimed steps aim to predict a customer will place multiple orders and consolidate the shipments to reduce shipping costs and use of resources (Applicant’s Specification, [0007]). By this evidence, the claims recite a type of commercial interactions (including sales activities or behaviors; business relations) common to judicial exception to patent-eligibility. By preponderance, the claims recite an abstract idea (e.g., computer-based supply chain optimization).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as a computing device; one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage devices; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage devices for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 include displaying a prompt on a client device, however this merely amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP
2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps to “receiving” a first order, “determining” a second order will be received, “delaying” shipment of the first order for an amount of time, and responsive to receiving the second order, “consolidating” the first order and second order (Example Claim 1).
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-20 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Kumar, US 20180330426 A1, hereinafter Kumar, in view of
Minh et al., WO 2021123932 A1, hereinafter Minh. As per,
Claims 1, 8, 15
Kumar teaches
A computer-implemented method for consolidating two or more shipments, the computer-implemented method comprising: /
A computer system for consolidating two or more shipments, the computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage devices; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage devices for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors, the stored program instructions comprising: /
A computer program product for consolidating two or more shipments, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage devices and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage devices, the stored program instructions comprising: (Kumar fig. 1; [0013]; [0053])
receiving, by a computing device, a first order associated with a user; (Kumar [0012] “an electronic marketplace may provide for the delivery of a selection of items … a customer places an order in the electronic marketplace through a web service;” [0013] “the user can access an electronic marketplace 112. An electronic marketplace is an online service having a server 116 for enabling online shopping, a database 114 containing at least data concerning products available in the electronic marketplace, and a consolidation module 152 for coordinating the consolidation and fulfillment of the combined order” note the electronic marketplace receiving a first order associated with a customer)
determining, […], that a second order associated with the user will be received within a predefined timeframe; and (Kumar [0042] “Using the estimated delivery date; the electronic marketplace 312, or the consolidation module 352, may determine whether an order can be fulfilled on time, in advance of actually receiving each element or before a designated delivery date or the expiration of a delivery window” note the estimating of whether the additional order of the customer will arrive within the predefined timeframe)
delaying the shipment of the first order, for a predetermined amount of time, based on the determination the second order will be received, (Kumar [0011] “The handmade item, and each other item in Alice's order, can be held … until the desired delivery date;” [0027] “Placing a hold on an order means designating that the held item or items in the order will be retained at a specified site until a fulfillment condition is met … the fulfilment condition may be a particular date, such that the consolidated order is prepared for delivery and fulfilled 146 on the designated date” note the holding of an order to consolidate with another order until a specified date corresponding to the delay for a predetermined amount of time)
wherein delaying the shipment of the first order comprises: executing a hold command that withholds the first order from a distribution center for the predetermined amount of time; and (Kumar [0027] “Placing a hold on an order means designating that the held item or items in the order will be retained at a specified site until a fulfillment condition is met;” [0034] “fulfilling the order is subject to fulfillment conditions, for example, a designated delivery date or delivery window. In such cases, the order may be held at the consolidation site until the designated delivery date” note the order held at the consolidation site for a predetermined amount of time/designated delivery date or window)
responsive to receiving the second order within the predefined timeframe, consolidating the first order and the second order into a consolidated order. (Kumar [0016] “The consolidation module 152 may … collect the items of the consolidated order … prior to transferring the collected items to the intended recipient 150;” [0017] “A logistical system controlling the consolidation site 140 may ensure that each item in the consolidated order is currently located at the consolidation site 140 (e.g., by matching item identifiers) before generating a shipping order for the consolidated order” note the consolidation of orders responsive to receiving the additional item meeting the fulfilment condition/predefined timeframe)
Kumar does not explicitly teach, Minh however in the analogous art of supply chain management teaches
[…], within predetermine range of confidence, […]; and (Minh [0080] “generating a predictive model;" [0081] “The predictive model may be validated if … it meets a pre-determined confidence threshold … After the predictive model has been validated, FO (fulfilment optimization) system 113 may apply the model to future electronic requests” note the prediction with a predetermine confidence threshold)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar’s order consolidation system to include a predetermine range of confidence in view of Minh in an effort to reduce costs and improve efficiencies with multiple order fulfilments (see Minh ¶ [0004]-[0006] & MPEP 2143G).
Claims 2, 9, 16
Kumar teaches
executing a command to ship the consolidated order. (Kumar [0027] “the packages associated with the order will be grouped into a shipment and delivered” note the shipment)
Claims 3, 10, 17
Kumar teaches
responsive to the not receiving the second order within the predefined timeframe, shipping the first order. (Kumar [0049] “If it is determined that the order is not complete 422, the system may check to determine whether an intended delivery date or delivery window is imminent or has occurred 424. If a delivery date may expire before the order is complete, the system may fulfill an incomplete or partial order” note the partial shipping of an incomplete order corresponding to the second order not received within the timeframe)
Claims 4, 11, 18
Kumar teaches
displaying, by a client device, a responsive prompt to that queries the user to consent to a consolidation the first order and the second order. (Kumar [0012] “when a customer places an order in the electronic marketplace through a web service, the user may be offered an option to select a consolidated order for simultaneous delivery;” [0054] “The environment includes an electronic client device 502, which can include any appropriate device operable to send and receive requests, messages or information over an appropriate network 504 and convey information back to a user of the device” note the user option on the client device)
Claims 6, 13, 20
Kumar teaches
wherein delaying the shipment of the first order further comprises: executing a hold command that instructs a fulfillment center or shipping center to hold a shipment or fulfilment of the first order for predetermined time, with respect to the predefined timeframe, so that that the second order and the first order can be consolidated. (Kumar [0027] “Placing a hold on an order means designating that the held item or items in the order will be retained at a specified site until a fulfillment condition is met … the fulfilment condition may be a particular date, such that the consolidated order is prepared for delivery and fulfilled 146 on the designated date” note the holding of an order to consolidate with another order until a specified date corresponding to the delay for a predetermined amount of time)
Claims 7, 14
Kumar teaches
identifying and applying a shipment consolidation window for the first order, based on fulfilment data and order details. (Kumar [0034] “the system may check whether a delivery window or delivery date is imminent … The system may repeat the process of checking 220 whether elements of the order have arrived on a periodic basis, e.g., daily, hourly, or more frequently. The frequency of checking may vary depending on a time of day, a logistical schedule, the immediacy of delivery window expiration or delivery date, or any other suitable criteria”)
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Kumar in view of Minh and in view of
Melcher et al., WO 2015148559 A1, hereinafter Melcher. As per,
Claims 5, 12, 19
Kumar does not explicitly teach, Minh however in the analogous art of supply chain management teaches
predicting and applying a shipment consolidation window for the first order based on user history, and order insights derived using purchase history, […]. (Minh [0080] “FO system 113 may store historical data associated with previously ordered product in the database, the data indicating information associated with previous electronic requests (e.g., identifier of the product ordered in the request, associated FCs, waves, and/or PDDs, etc.);” [0079] “The average travel time of the product through each FC may be the average time it takes for the given product to move from the FC to the camp zone, and may be based on historic data stored in a database within system 100 (e.g., database 301) representing previous times associated with one or more similar products’ movement through the FC” note the use of historical data to predict the consolidation window; [0084] “In response to this determination, FO system 113 may reschedule the deliveries so that they occur during the same wave” note the application of the shipment consolidation window)
The rationale/motivation to combine Kumar with Minh persists.
Kumar / Minh do not explicitly teach, Melcher however in the analogous art of order fulfilment teaches
[…] browsing history, calendar events, internet of things (IoT) data, user profiles, social media data, and scheduled promotions; (Melcher [00114] “the attribute data is received or accessed from a broad range of attribute sources such as, for example, from mobile devices, smart devices, smart homes, social network services, user profiles, browsing histories, purchase histories” noting the browsing history, smart device data, social media data, user profiles; [00222] “causing presentation of an advertisement, adjusting item listing search results of the user to emphasize item listings associated with a particular item” corresponding to the scheduled promotions; [8(5229] “user calendar information included in the attribute data or purchase history data such as plane ticket information” noting the calendar events)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar’s order consolidation system and Minh’s predictive model to include additional user data attributes in view of Melcher in an effort to access a wealth of user attribute data to predict their next likely purchase (see Melcher ¶ [8(5118] & MPEP 2143G).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20080177757 A1; WO 2017223058 A1; Mo et al., Consolidating Orders in a Crowdsourcing Delivery Network, 2018.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624