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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on January 15, 2026. The Applicant’s Amendment and Request for Reconsideration has been received and entered.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 13-17, and 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 3, 10, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 2, 11-12, and 18 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated any new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues at page 10 of Applicant’s Reply dated January 16, 2026 (hereinafter “Applicant’s Reply”) that the pending claims “are integrated into a practical application and tied to a particular machine.” Applicant further argues at page 11 of Applicant’s Reply that “a user may browse a product object and have a strong desire to purchase, but eventually give up the purchase due to logistics problems, causing a large waste of resources consumed by the system for aspects such as storage and transmission of product object information, user information, etc. To resolve these deficiencies of the existing technologies, the instant Application is directed to solving problems that exist in real-world applications, namely, applications involving provision of a user interface configured to allow a user to distinguish different product objects belonging to different logistics plans and facilitate the user to select target product objects belonging to a particular logistics plan in a cross-border scenario. In order to achieve this purpose, a designated/particular hardware is provided to store relationship between identifications of target logistics plans and identifications of product objects to allow queries to be made for finding a target logistics plan that matches a plurality of product objects ordered by a user, and a novel user interface is provided to aggregate and display product objects that belong to a same target logistics plan.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per MPEP 2106.04(d), in order to determine if a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c) and (e)-(h) are evaluated. MPEP 2106.04(d) clearly states that “a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration... However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception.” The Examiner notes that the considerations include improvements to computer functionality, improvements to any other technology or technical field, and a particular machine or transformation.
Further, per MPEP 2106.05(a), in order to constitute a technical improvement, the specification "must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology." Further, per MPEP 2106.05(a), "if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement."
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), improvements to computer functionality include a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage; inventive distribution of functionality within a network to filter Internet content; a method of rendering a halftone digital image; a distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion to reduce network congestion while generating networking accounting data records; a memory system having programmable operational characteristics that are configurable based on the type of processor, which can be used with different types of processors without a tradeoff in processor performance; technical details as to how to transmit images over a cellular network or append classification information to digital image data; a particular structure of a server that stores organized digital images; a particular way of programming or designing software to create menus; a method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code," which is an improvement over traditional virus scanning; an improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application; a specific interface and implementation for navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique to computers; and a specific method of restricting software operation within a license.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), some examples that the courts have said “may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality” include generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features; accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer; mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase; recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a cellular telephone; affixing a barcode to a mail object in order to more reliably identify the sender and speed up mail processing, without any limitations specifying the technical details of the barcode or how it is generated or processed; instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result; providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality”; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly.
With this guidance in mind, the Examiner respectfully asserts that the claims are not directed to a practical application. The stated problem of “providing logistics services” and preventing a user from canceling a purchase due to logistics problems is not a technical problem but is instead a problem related to customer experience, i.e., a commercial interaction. Applicant’s arguments regarding the arrangement of the user interface appear to be most similar to “arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly” which was listed above as an example that the courts have said “may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality”. Thus, the Examiner respectfully asserts that the claims do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues at page 13 of Applicant’s Reply, that “independent claim 1 is tied to a particular machine, namely ‘a product object information database,’ to allow a determination of ‘a plurality of target product objects supporting a target logistics plan from the target collection.’” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per MPEP 2106.05(b), “while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility.” Further, per MPEP 2706 05(b), “a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.”
First, the Examiner notes that claim 1 is a method claim and recites that the method is “implemented by a computing device.” The “product object information database” recited in claim 1 is not performing any of the steps in claim 1. Instead, it is merely a database that is accessed. Further, neither the specification nor the claims describes the database in any detail and what makes it a “particular machine,.” i.e., any particular structure or construct of the database.
The court in Enfish drew a distinction between a business solution and a technical solution by finding it "relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea” and asked "whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database) or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ’abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” The Enfish court concluded that “the plain focus of the claims is on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity.”
With this guidance in mind, the Examiner respectfully asserts that the instant claims are directed to using existing computers as tools to perform the abstract idea, i.e., what information is retrieved from the database, and not to an improvement in computer functionality. There is no change or improvement to the database itself and it operates as any other database. Thus, the database is considered to be a generic database performing generic database functions, which does not impart eligibility.
Thus, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed in more detail below, the Examiner has cited Wadhawan as disclosing determining whether the plurality of target products objects satisfies one or more conditions associated with the target logistics plan…(See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 7 and associated text, Tide Original Laundry Detergent, Price $11.99, weight 7 pounds, available in the Weighted Shipping Zone; FIG. 8 and associated text, item 802, 7 pounds in box, you can add 33 more (prompt); condition satisfied is the 40 pounds; para. [0044]); in response to determining that the plurality of target products objects satisfies the one or more conditions associated with the target logistic plan…, providing a first operation option for adding other product objects that support the target logistics plan to the target collection associated with the user …(See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 8 and associated text, item 802, 7 pounds in box, you can add 33 more (prompt); condition satisfied is the 40 pounds; item 804 displays other products available under Weighted Shipping to add to the box; para. [0044], para. [0045], para. [0084]); and after the user selects at least one product object of the other product objects, aggregating and displaying the at least one product object with the plurality of target products objects in the first area (See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 7 and associated text, Tide Original Laundry Detergent, Price $11.99, weight 7 pounds, available in the Weighted Shipping Zone; FIG. 8 and associated text, item 802, 7 pounds in box; item 804, Customers Who Bought Tide Original Laundry…Also Bought, i.e., the Tide Laundry Detergent is in the box and system is recommending other products; FIG. 10 and associated text, products available for Weighted Shipping are displayed along with their respective weights; para. [0088], FIGS. 11A illustrates the process of adding items to the weight-based shipping container; in this case, the Pepperidge Farm Goldfish, Cheddar 30-ounce carton weighting 2 pounds and costing $6.78 is added to the box so that the box weight now equals 9 pounds; Figure 13 displays the box/shopping cart with both the Tide and the Goldfish crackers in it).
As discussed in more detail below, the Examiner has cited Racco as disclosing that the target logistics plan is in a cross-border logistics scenario (See Racco, at least FIG. 20 and associated text; para. [0172], sellers can specify how they will ship their item to buyers; for example, Canadian and US sellers may choose different shipping methods to buyers in Canada, the United States and international buyers; if the seller is not from Canada or the US, they would have a fourth option allowing them to specify their shipping method to buyers in their own country; for example, if the user is from Australia, they can specify a shipping method for shipping within Australia, shipping to Canada, the United States and shipping internationally; the seller in Australia may want to offer free shipping to buyers within Australia, offer a flat shipping rate to buyers in the United States, use calculated shipping (using UPS, Fed-Ex, the United States Postal Service etc. to automatically calculate the shipping price based on the buyer's location and weight and dimensions of the packaged items), and finally require that international buyers make individual shipping requests to the seller so that they could determine shipping on a per user basis).
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been fully considered but, as they are directed to the instantly amended claims, they have either been discussed above or they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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, 3, 5, 7-10, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 17, and 19 recite a method, a non-transitory medium, and an apparatus to display products and shipping options. With respect to claim 1, claim elements determining multiple product objects, determining a plurality of target product objects supporting a target logistics plan, querying a product object information database, determining respective identification of one or more target logistics plans, aggregating the plurality of target product objects, determining whether the plurality of target objects satisfies one or more conditions, providing a first operation option for adding other product objects, and aggregating the at least one product object with the plurality of target product objects, as drafted, illustrate a series of steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a method of organizing a human activity, such as a commercial or legal interaction, i.e., sales activities.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations.
With respect to claim 19, claim elements determining multiple product objects, determining at least one target product object that supports a target logistics plan, querying a product object information database, determining respective identification of one or more target logistics plans, aggregating the at least one target product object, combining a plurality of target objects, determining whether the plurality of target objects satisfies one or more conditions, providing a first operation option for adding other product objects, and aggregating the at least one product object with the plurality of target product objects, as drafted, illustrate a series of steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a method of organizing a human activity, such as a commercial or legal interaction, i.e., sales activities.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 17, and 19 recite generating (displaying) a page and displaying the at least one product object with the plurality of target products and claim 17 recites receiving a request. These elements are considered to recite insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, claim 19 recites one or more processors and memory at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea.
Thus, claims 1, 17, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 19 recites one or more processors and memory at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, regarding the displaying and receiving elements, per MPEP 2106.05(d}(ll), elements such as receiving, transmitting, or displaying data over a network, i.e., using the internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory are considered to be computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1308, 1334, 115 USPG2d 1681,1701 (Fed. Cir, 2015); OIP Techs Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPG2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 785 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPG2d 1093, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
Thus, claims 1, 17, and 19 are not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 5, 7-10, 13-16, and 20 depend from claims 1, 17, and 19. Claim 3 is directed to determining the target logistics plan and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 5 is directed to providing tab options on the page and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 7 is further directed to providing tab options on the page and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 8 is directed to providing interface objects on the page and aggregating the at least one target product object and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 9-10 are directed to providing information and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 13 is directed to providing an interface object on the page and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 14 is directed to the type of target logistics plan and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 15 is directed to combining multiple target objects and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 16 is directed to determining information, providing the information, and generating a logistics order and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 20 is directed to combining and delivering the target product objects and is further directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 3, 5, 9-10, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over US 2017/0024804 A1 to Tepfenhart, JR. et al. (hereinafter “Tepfenhart”), in view of US 2015/0254758 A1 to Wadhawan et al. (hereinafter “Wadhawan”), and further in view of US 2011/0161182 A1 to Racco (hereinafter “Racco).
Claim 1: Tepfenhart discloses “systems and methods for receiving and processing online orders for items and/or services to be fulfilled by the retailer using multiple different fulfillment channels or methods for multiple items in a single order.” (See Tepfenhart, at least Abstract). Tepfenhart further discloses:
determining multiple product objects in a target collection associated with a user, wherein the multiple product objects are added into the target collection by the user (See Tepfenhart, at least para. [0031], customer using a client device accesses retailer’s server system to order and/or purchase items from the retailer; para. [0036], customer adds one or more items to a virtual shopping cart);
determining a plurality of target product objects supporting a target logistics plan from the target collection (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text; para. [0033], available fulfillment options for each item are stored in a product catalog database that accessed by the online retail system; para. [0032], shopping cart displays a listing for each of a plurality of items that includes available fulfilment options or channels for each item; in the example of Figure 1, each item in the cart has 4 different fulfillment options), wherein determining the plurality of target product objects supporting the target logistics plan comprises:
querying a product object information database based at least in part on corresponding identifications of the multiple product objects (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text; para. [0033], available fulfillment options for each item are stored in a product catalog database that accessed by the online retail system); and
determining respective identifications of one or more target logistics plans supported by the multiple product objects based at least in part on records stored in the product information database (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text; para. [0033], available fulfillment options for each item are stored in a product catalog database that accessed by the online retail system; para. [0032], shopping cart displays a listing for each of a plurality of items that includes available fulfilment options or channels for each item; in the example of Figure 1, each item in the cart has 4 different fulfillment options);
generating a page corresponding to the target collection, and aggregating the plurality of target product objects into a first area for display (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text, first 2 items in the top half of the page have a product availability option of “Ship to Store—Free”, while the 3rd item has a product availability option of Delivery, and the 4th item has a product availability option of “Store Pickup—Free”), wherein:
the page comprises the first area displaying the plurality of target product objects supporting the target logistics plan and a second area displaying remaining product objects of the multiple product objects in the target collection that do not support the target logistics plan (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text, first 2 items in the top half of the page have a product availability option of “Ship to Store—Free”, while the 3rd item has a product availability option of Delivery, and the 4th item has a product availability option of “Store Pickup—Free”), and
the first area does not overlap with the second area (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text, first 2 items in the top half of the page have a product availability option of “Ship to Store—Free”, while the 3rd item has a product availability option of Delivery, and the 4th item has a product availability option of “Store Pickup—Free”; the Examiner notes that the different areas are discrete and do not overlap).
Tepfenhart does not expressly disclose determining whether the plurality of target products objects satisfies one or more conditions associated with the target logistics plan…; in response to determining that the plurality of target products objects satisfies the one or more conditions associated with the target logistic plan…, providing a first operation option for adding other product objects that support the target logistics plan to the target collection associated with the user; and after the user selects at least one product object of the other product objects, aggregating and displaying the at least one product object with the plurality of target products objects in the first area.
However, Wadhawan discloses a system and method to “provide users with access to a weight-based shipping service that enables the users to purchase a group of items and pay a flat shipping fee. These systems and methods can enable a user to combine certain items into a box or set of boxes based on weight for a reduced shipping cost.” (See Wadhawan, at least Abstract). Wadhawan further discloses:
determining whether the plurality of target products objects satisfies one or more conditions associated with the target logistics plan…(See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 7 and associated text, Tide Original Laundry Detergent, Price $11.99, weight 7 pounds, available in the Weighted Shipping Zone; FIG. 8 and associated text, item 802, 7 pounds in box, you can add 33 more (prompt); condition satisfied is the 40 pounds; para. [0044], box allocation module 152 can determine whether there is enough room (e.g., based on weight, volume, or any other physical or logical metric) in the existing box(es) to fit the selected item; box allocation module 152 can determine the available capacity of a physical box; box allocation module 152 may determine a representation of what a physical box's capacity would be if one or more items were added to the physical box);
in response to determining that the plurality of target products objects satisfies the one or more conditions associated with the target logistic plan…, providing a first operation option for adding other product objects that support the target logistics plan to the target collection associated with the user (See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 8 and associated text, item 802, 7 pounds in box, you can add 33 more (prompt); condition satisfied is the 40 pounds; item 804 displays other products available under Weighted Shipping to add to the box; para. [0044], box allocation module 152 can determine whether there is enough room (e.g., based on weight, volume, or any other physical or logical metric) in the existing box(es) to fit the selected item; box allocation module 152 can determine the available capacity of a physical box; para. [0045], box allocation module 152 provides to the user a box status (e.g., via a user interface display) indicating the total weight of the items placed in the box(es), para. [0084], set of item recommendations 804 displayed to the user based on the current items already in the weight-based shipping container); and
after the user selects at least one product object of the other product objects, aggregating and displaying the at least one product object with the plurality of target products objects in the first area (See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 7 and associated text, Tide Original Laundry Detergent, Price $11.99, weight 7 pounds, available in the Weighted Shipping Zone; FIG. 8 and associated text, item 802, 7 pounds in box; item 804, Customers Who Bought Tide Original Laundry…Also Bought, i.e., the Tide Laundry Detergent is in the box and system is recommending other products; FIG. 10 and associated text, products available for Weighted Shipping are displayed along with their respective weights; para. [0088], FIGS. 11A illustrates the process of adding items to the weight-based shipping container; in this case, the Pepperidge Farm Goldfish, Cheddar 30-ounce carton weighting 2 pounds and costing $6.78 is added to the box so that the box weight now equals 9 pounds; Figure 13 displays the box/shopping cart with both the Tide and the Goldfish crackers in it).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the product fulfilment system and method of Tepfenhart the ability of determining whether the plurality of target products objects satisfies one or more conditions associated with the target logistics plan…; in response to determining that the plurality of target products objects satisfies the one or more conditions associated with the target logistic plan…, providing a first operation option for adding other product objects that support the target logistics plan to the target collection associated with the user; and after the user selects at least one product object of the other product objects, aggregating and displaying the at least one product object with the plurality of target products objects in the first area as disclosed by Wadhawan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow users “to purchase a group of items and a pay a flat shipping fee.” (See Wadhawan, at least para. [0023]).
Neither Tepfenhart nor Wadhawan expressly discloses that the target logistics plan is in a cross-border logistics scenario.
However, Racco discloses a system and method for listing an item for sale online. (See Racco, at least Abstract). Racco further discloses that the target logistics plan is in a cross-border logistics scenario (See Racco, at least FIG. 20 and associated text; para. [0172], sellers can specify how they will ship their item to buyers; for example, Canadian and US sellers may choose different shipping methods to buyers in Canada, the United States and international buyers; if the seller is not from Canada or the US, they would have a fourth option allowing them to specify their shipping method to buyers in their own country; for example, if the user is from Australia, they can specify a shipping method for shipping within Australia, shipping to Canada, the United States and shipping internationally; the seller in Australia may want to offer free shipping to buyers within Australia, offer a flat shipping rate to buyers in the United States, use calculated shipping (using UPS, Fed-Ex, the United States Postal Service etc. to automatically calculate the shipping price based on the buyer's location and weight and dimensions of the packaged items), and finally require that international buyers make individual shipping requests to the seller so that they could determine shipping on a per user basis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the product fulfilment system and method of Tepfenhart and the shipping system and method of Wadhawan the ability that the target logistics plan is in a cross-border logistics scenario as disclosed by Racco since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a tool that allows a seller “to be flexible and ‘mix and match’ their shipping options to different geographic regions.” (See Racco, at least para. [0172]).
Claim 3: The combination of Tepfenhart and Wadhawan and Racco discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Neither Tepfenhart nor Wadhawan expressly discloses determining the target logistics plan associated with a target country where the user is located, wherein determining the plurality of target product objects supporting the target logistics plan from the target collection comprises: determining the plurality of target product objects supporting the target logistics plan associated with the target country from the target collection.
However, Racco discloses determining the target logistics plan associated with a target country where the user is located, wherein determining the plurality of target product objects supporting the target logistics plan from the target collection comprises: determining the plurality of target product objects supporting the target logistics plan associated with the target country from the target collection (See Racco, at least FIGs. 13 and 20 and associated text; para. [0142], seller can list a single item for sale; everything seller needs is on a single page as shown in Figure 13 including links to list the item, add details of the item, shipping and payment information (item 183), etc. para. [0172], selecting item 183 in Figure 13 leads to Figure 20; sellers can specify how they will ship their item to buyers; for example, Canadian and US sellers may choose different shipping methods to buyers in Canada, the United States and international buyers; if the seller is not from Canada or the US, they would have a fourth option allowing them to specify their shipping method to buyers in their own country; for example, if the user is from Australia, they can specify a shipping method for shipping within Australia, shipping to Canada, the United States and shipping internationally; the seller in Australia may want to offer free shipping to buyers within Australia, offer a flat shipping rate to buyers in the United States, use calculated shipping (using UPS, Fed-Ex, the United States Postal Service etc. to automatically calculate the shipping price based on the buyer's location and weight and dimensions of the packaged items), and finally require that international buyers make individual shipping requests to the seller so that they could determine shipping on a per user basis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the product fulfilment system and method of Tepfenhart and the shipping system and method of Wadhawan the ability of determining the target logistics plan associated with a target country where the user is located, wherein determining the plurality of target product objects supporting the target logistics plan from the target collection comprises: determining the plurality of target product objects supporting the target logistics plan associated with the target country from the target collection as disclosed by Racco since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a tool that allows a seller “to be flexible and ‘mix and match’ their shipping options to different geographic regions.” (See Racco, at least para. [0172]).
Claim 5: The combination of Tepfenhart and Wadhawan and Racco discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Tepfenhart does not expressly disclose wherein generating the page corresponding to the target collection comprises: providing a first tab option and a second tab option on the page, wherein the first tab option corresponds to a default product object sorting method, and the second tab option corresponds to the target logistics plan.
However, Wadhawan discloses wherein generating the page corresponding to the target collection comprises: providing a first tab option and a second tab option on the page (See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 13 and associated text, there are two areas of the page, one for weight-based shipping and one for items saved for later), wherein the first tab option corresponds to a default product object sorting method (See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 13 and associated text, items saved for later), and the second tab option corresponds to the target logistics plan (See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 13 and associated text, cart with items eligible for weighted shipping).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system and method of Tepfenhart- Wadhawan-Racco the ability wherein generating the page corresponding to the target collection comprises: providing a first tab option and a second tab option on the page, wherein the first tab option corresponds to a default product object sorting method, and the second tab option corresponds to the target logistics plan as further disclosed by Wadhawan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow users “to purchase a group of items and a pay a flat shipping fee.” (See Wadhawan, at least para. [0023]).
Claim 9: The combination of Tepfenhart and Wadhawan and Racco discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Tepfenhart further discloses providing label information about the target logistics plan supported by the plurality of target product objects in the first area (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text, first 2 items in the top half of the page have a product availability option of “Ship to Store—Free”).
Claim 10: The combination of Tepfenhart and Wadhawan and Racco discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Tepfenhart does not expressly disclose providing information of the one or more conditions and prompt information indicating whether the plurality of target product objects currently included in the target collection satisfies the one or more conditions in the first area.
However, Wadhawan discloses providing information of the one or more conditions (See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 8 and associated text, What is Weighted Shipping explains how weight-based shipping works including delivery fee and weight allowance for each box) and prompt information indicating whether the plurality of target product objects currently included in the target collection satisfies the one or more conditions in the first area (See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 8 and associated text, item 802, 7 pounds in box, you can add 33 more (prompt); condition satisfied is the 40 pounds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system and method of Tepfenhart- Wadhawan-Racco the ability of providing information of the one or more conditions and prompt information indicating whether the plurality of target product objects currently included in the target collection satisfies the one or more conditions in the first area as further disclosed by Wadhawan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow users “to purchase a group of items and a pay a flat shipping fee.” (See Wadhawan, at least para. [0023]).
Claim 14: The combination of Tepfenhart and Wadhawan and Racco discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Tepfenhart further discloses wherein the target logistics plan comprises: one target logistics plan selected by the user from a plurality of selectable logistics plans (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text, each item in the cart has 4 different fulfillment options; para. [0033], each fulfillment option includes a radio button (or other type of manipulable selector suitable for interactive interfaces in client systems) that may be selected by a customer to assign a fulfillment channel for each item).
Claim 15: The combination of Tepfenhart and Wadhawan and Racco discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Tepfenhart further discloses after receiving a request for generating a transaction order, combining the plurality of target product objects…into a same transaction order if the plurality of target product objects…[is] included in the request (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 7 and associated text; para. [0048], user activates “Proceed to Checkout” button; system confirms that items and selected fulfillment channels are confirmed; para. [0049], checkout displays each include an order summary section that shows all of the items in the customer’s order grouped by their selected fulfillment channels; In Figure 7, the Order Summary displays separate sections for Store Pickup, Ship to Store, Ship to Home, and Delivery items).
Tepfenhart does not expressly disclose combining the target product object and the at least one product object into a same transaction order if the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object are included in the request.
However, Wadhawan discloses combining the target product object and the at least one product object into a same transaction order if the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object are included in the request (See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 13 and associated text, shopping cart including both the Tide (the target product object) and the Pepperidge Farm Goldfish crackers (the at least one product object) are displayed together) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system and method of Tepfenhart- Wadhawan-Racco the ability of combining the target product object and the at least one product object into a same transaction order if the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object are included in the request as further disclosed by Wadhawan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow users “to purchase a group of items and a pay a flat shipping fee.” (See Wadhawan, at least para. [0023]).
Claim 17: Tepfenhart discloses:
receiving a request to display a page corresponding to a target collection (See Tepfenhart, at least para. [0038], customer refreshes the shopping cart display in browser);
determining multiple product objects in the target collection (See Tepfenhart, at least para. [0031], customer using a client device accesses retailer’s server system to order and/or purchase items from the retailer; para. [0036], customer adds one or more items to a virtual shopping cart), and a plurality of target product objects supporting a target logistics plan (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text; para. [0033], available fulfillment options for each item are stored in a product catalog database that accessed by the online retail system; para. [0032], shopping cart displays a listing for each of a plurality of items that includes available fulfilment options or channels for each item; in the example of Figure 1, each item in the cart has 4 different fulfillment options), wherein determining the plurality of target product objects supporting the target logistics plan comprises:
querying a product object information database based at least in part on corresponding identifications of the multiple product objects (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text; para. [0033], available fulfillment options for each item are stored in a product catalog database that accessed by the online retail system); and
determining respective identifications of one or more target logistics plans supported by the multiple product objects based at least in part on records stored in the product information database (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text; para. [0033], available fulfillment options for each item are stored in a product catalog database that accessed by the online retail system; para. [0032], shopping cart displays a listing for each of a plurality of items that includes available fulfilment options or channels for each item; in the example of Figure 1, each item in the cart has 4 different fulfillment options);
displaying the page, and aggregating the plurality of target product objects into a first area for display (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text, first 2 items in the top half of the page have a product availability option of “Ship to Store—Free”, while the 3rd item has a product availability option of Delivery, and the 4th item has a product availability option of “Store Pickup—Free”), wherein the page comprises the first area displaying the plurality of target product objects supporting the target logistics plan and a second area displaying remaining product objects of the multiple product objects in the target collection that do not support the target logistics plan (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text, first 2 items in the top half of the page have a product availability option of “Ship to Store—Free”, while the 3rd item has a product availability option of Delivery, and the 4th item has a product availability option of “Store Pickup—Free”), and the first area does not overlap with the second area (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text, first 2 items in the top half of the page have a product availability option of “Ship to Store—Free”, while the 3rd item has a product availability option of Delivery, and the 4th item has a product availability option of “Store Pickup—Free”; the Examiner notes that the different areas are discrete and do not overlap).
Tepfenhart does not expressly disclose determining whether the plurality of target products objects satisfies one or more conditions associated with the target logistics plan…; in response to determining that the plurality of target products objects satisfies the one or more conditions associated with the target logistic plan…, providing a first operation option for adding other product objects that support the target logistics plan to the target collection associated with a user; and after the user selects at least one product object of the other product objects, aggregating and displaying the at least one product object with the plurality of target products objects in the first area.
However, Wadhawan discloses:
determining whether the plurality of target products objects satisfies one or more conditions associated with the target logistics plan…(See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 7 and associated text, Tide Original Laundry Detergent, Price $11.99, weight 7 pounds, available in the Weighted Shipping Zone; FIG. 8 and associated text, item 802, 7 pounds in box, you can add 33 more (prompt); condition satisfied is the 40 pounds; para. [0044], box allocation module 152 can determine whether there is enough room (e.g., based on weight, volume, or any other physical or logical metric) in the existing box(es) to fit the selected item; box allocation module 152 can determine the available capacity of a physical box; box allocation module 152 may determine a representation of what a physical box's capacity would be if one or more items were added to the physical box);
in response to determining that the plurality of target products objects satisfies the one or more conditions associated with the target logistic plan…, providing a first operation option for adding other product objects that support the target logistics plan to the target collection associated with a user (See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 8 and associated text, item 802, 7 pounds in box, you can add 33 more (prompt); condition satisfied is the 40 pounds; item 804 displays other products available under Weighted Shipping to add to the box; para. [0044], box allocation module 152 can determine whether there is enough room (e.g., based on weight, volume, or any other physical or logical metric) in the existing box(es) to fit the selected item; box allocation module 152 can determine the available capacity of a physical box; para. [0045], box allocation module 152 provides to the user a box status (e.g., via a user interface display) indicating the total weight of the items placed in the box(es), para. [0084], set of item recommendations 804 displayed to the user based on the current items already in the weight-based shipping container); and
after the user selects at least one product object of the other product objects, aggregating and displaying the at least one product object with the plurality of target products objects in the first area (See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 7 and associated text, Tide Original Laundry Detergent, Price $11.99, weight 7 pounds, available in the Weighted Shipping Zone; FIG. 8 and associated text, item 802, 7 pounds in box; item 804, Customers Who Bought Tide Original Laundry…Also Bought, i.e., the Tide Laundry Detergent is in the box and system is recommending other products; FIG. 10 and associated text, products available for Weighted Shipping are displayed along with their respective weights; para. [0088], FIGS. 11A illustrates the process of adding items to the weight-based shipping container; in this case, the Pepperidge Farm Goldfish, Cheddar 30-ounce carton weighting 2 pounds and costing $6.78 is added to the box so that the box weight now equals 9 pounds; Figure 13 displays the box/shopping cart with both the Tide and the Goldfish crackers in it).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the product fulfilment system and method of Tepfenhart the ability of determining whether the plurality of target products objects satisfies one or more conditions associated with the target logistics plan…; in response to determining that the plurality of target products objects satisfies the one or more conditions associated with the target logistic plan…, providing a first operation option for adding other product objects that support the target logistics plan to the target collection associated with a user; and after the user selects at least one product object of the other product objects, aggregating and displaying the at least one product object with the plurality of target products objects in the first area as disclosed by Wadhawan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow users “to purchase a group of items and a pay a flat shipping fee.” (See Wadhawan, at least para. [0023]).
Neither Tepfenhart nor Wadhawan expressly discloses that the target logistics plan is in a cross-border logistics scenario.
However, Racco discloses a system and method for listing an item for sale online. (See Racco, at least Abstract). Racco further discloses that the target logistics plan is in a cross-border logistics scenario (See Racco, at least FIG. 20 and associated text; para. [0172], sellers can specify how they will ship their item to buyers; for example, Canadian and US sellers may choose different shipping methods to buyers in Canada, the United States and international buyers; if the seller is not from Canada or the US, they would have a fourth option allowing them to specify their shipping method to buyers in their own country; for example, if the user is from Australia, they can specify a shipping method for shipping within Australia, shipping to Canada, the United States and shipping internationally; the seller in Australia may want to offer free shipping to buyers within Australia, offer a flat shipping rate to buyers in the United States, use calculated shipping (using UPS, Fed-Ex, the United States Postal Service etc. to automatically calculate the shipping price based on the buyer's location and weight and dimensions of the packaged items), and finally require that international buyers make individual shipping requests to the seller so that they could determine shipping on a per user basis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the product fulfilment system and method of Tepfenhart and the shipping system and method of Wadhawan the ability that the target logistics plan is in a cross-border logistics scenario as disclosed by Racco since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a tool that allows a seller “to be flexible and ‘mix and match’ their shipping options to different geographic regions.” (See Racco, at least para. [0172]).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepfenhart in view of Wadhawan and further in view of Racco as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of US 10,489,841 B1 to Ogborn et al. (hereinafter “Ogborn”).
Claim 7: The combination of Tepfenhart and Wadhawan and Racco discloses all the limitations of claim 5 discussed above.
Neither Tepfenhart nor Wadhawan nor Racco expressly discloses wherein multiple second tab options corresponding to different target logistics plans are provided on the page if the target logistics plan comprises multiple target logistics plans.
However, Ogborn discloses a system and method in which selected offers for items are assembled for a transaction and in which a fulfillment option benefit, such as a delivery or shipping benefit, is identified for a first one of the items. (See Ogborn, at least Abstract). Ogborn further discloses that the system “determines whether an offer for a second one of the items contributes to qualification for the same fulfillment option benefit. When the offer for the second item does not contribute, the system searches for any other second item offers that do contribute to qualification for the benefit. If multiple other offers are found, the system ranks the other offers to identify a preferred other offer for the second item. The system then calculates a difference between the originally-selected offer and the preferred offer for the second item and generates a qualification contribution notification that highlights the preferred other offer as contributing to the fulfillment option benefit.” (See Ogborn, at least Abstract). Ogborn further discloses wherein multiple second tab options corresponding to different target logistics plans are provided on the page if the target logistics plan comprises multiple target logistics plans (See Ogborn, at least FIG. 4A and associated text, shopping cart is divided into 2 sections: Combined $5 flat-rate shipping and Free Two Day Shipping).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the product fulfilment system and method of Tepfenhart and the shipping system and method of Wadhawan and the cross-border selling system of Racco the ability wherein multiple second tab options corresponding to different target logistics plans are provided on the page if the target logistics plan comprises multiple target logistics plans as disclosed by Ogborn since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to assist users to qualify for and maximize benefits provided by online retailers. (See Ogborn, at least col. 2, lines 60-67).
Claim 13: The combination of Tepfenhart and Wadhawan and Racco discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Neither Tepfenhart nor Wadhawan nor Racco expressly discloses providing a second operation option for modifying a corresponding target logistics plan of one target product object in the first area, so as to modify the target product object to another logistics plan.
However, Ogborn discloses providing a second operation option for modifying a corresponding target logistics plan of one target product object in the first area, so as to modify the target product object to another logistics plan (See Ogborn, at least FIGs 4A-4B and associated text; col. 11, lines 58-67, offer optimizer presents an alternative offer to get free two-day shipping if the product is priced $.50 more).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the product fulfilment system and method of Tepfenhart and the shipping system and method of Wadhawan and the cross-border selling system of Racco the ability of providing a second operation option for modifying a corresponding target logistics plan of one target product object in the first area, so as to modify the target product object to another logistics plan as disclosed by Ogborn since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to assist users to qualify for and maximize benefits provided by online retailers. (See Ogborn, at least col. 2, lines 60-67).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepfenhart in view of Wadhawan and further in view of Racco as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 9,047,607 B1 to Curial et al. (hereinafter “Curial”).
The combination of Tepfenhart and Wadhawan and Racco discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Tepfenhart further discloses providing an operation object on the page according to an identification of the target logistics plan; and…aggregating the plurality of target product objects…for display in response to an operation request on the operation object (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 7 and associated text; para. [0048], user activates “Proceed to Checkout” button; system confirms that items and selected fulfillment channels are confirmed; para. [0049], checkout displays each include an order summary section that shows all of the items in the customer’s order grouped by their selected fulfillment channels; In Figure 7, the Order Summary displays separate sections for Store Pickup, Ship to Store, Ship to Home, and Delivery items).
Neither Tepfenhart nor Wadhawan nor Racco expressly discloses providing a floating layer.
However, Curial discloses systems and methods for “determining eligibility for a location-based shipping option for multiple fulfillment networks.” (See Curial, at least Abstract). Curial further discloses that the system displays information to a user “to indicate whether items are eligible for an enhanced shipping option based upon the shipping origin of the item and a predicted shipping destination.” (See Curial, at least Abstract). Curial further discloses providing a floating layer (See Curial, at least col. 17, lines 1-6, user interface element containing Order With Enhanced Shipping options may be presented as a pop-up menu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the product fulfilment system and method of Tepfenhart and the shipping system and method of Wadhawan and the cross-border selling system of Racco the ability of providing a floating layer as disclosed by Curial since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “compete with the advantage of traditional stores, namely the near instant receipt of purchased items.” (See Curial, at least col. 1, lines 20-35).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepfenhart in view of Wadhawan and further in view of Racco as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2008/0301009 A1 to Plaster et al. (hereinafter “Plaster”).
The combination of Tepfenhart and Wadhawan and Racco discloses all the limitations of claim 15 discussed above.
Neither Tepfenhart nor Wadhawan nor Racco expressly discloses determining information of destination of collection of goods in a first logistics stage according to the target logistics plan, and providing the information of destination of collection of goods to one or more dispatchers associated with the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object; and generating a logistics order for a second logistics stage to combine and deliver the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object for shipping to a delivery address associated with the user.
However, Plaster discloses systems and methods “for providing inventory fulfillment services to customers who have small quantities of heterogeneous items to sell.” (See Plaster, at least Abstract). Plaster further discloses:
determining information of destination of collection of goods in a first logistics stage according to the target logistics plan, and providing the information of destination of collection of goods to one or more dispatchers associated with the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object (See Plaster, at least para. [0077], order received from a customer containing items from different merchants; paras. [0078]-[0079], items are retrieved by pickers from warehouse and delivered to a packaging area within the fulfilment center); and
generating a logistics order for a second logistics stage to combine and deliver the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object for shipping to a delivery address associated with the user (See Plaster, at least para. [0079], at least two of the retrieved items corresponding to two different merchants are packaged into a single package for shipment; para. [0080], package containing at least two items is tendered to a carrier for shipping to the customer; para. [0115], carriers include postal service, UPS, couriers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the product fulfilment system and method of Tepfenhart and the shipping system and method of Wadhawan and the cross-border selling system of Racco the ability of determining information of destination of collection of goods in a first logistics stage according to the target logistics plan, and providing the information of destination of collection of goods to one or more dispatchers associated with the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object; and generating a logistics order for a second logistics stage to combine and deliver the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object for shipping to a delivery address associated with the user as disclosed by Plaster since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “packaging and shipping a group of items…separately may cost more than packaging and shipping those items together.” (See Plaster, at least para. [0075]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepfenhart, in view of Wadhawan, and further in view of Racco, and further in view of Plaster.
Claim 19: Tepfenhart discloses:
one or more processors (See Tepfenhart, at least para. [0022], processor); and
memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (See Tepfenhart, at least para. [0022], memory) cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising:
determining multiple product objects in a target collection associated with a first user (See Tepfenhart, at least para. [0031], customer using a client device accesses retailer’s server system to order and/or purchase items from the retailer; para. [0036], customer adds one or more items to a virtual shopping cart), wherein:
determining a plurality of target product object that supports a target logistics plan from the target collection (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text; para. [0033], available fulfillment options for each item are stored in a product catalog database that accessed by the online retail system; para. [0032], shopping cart displays a listing for each of a plurality of items that includes available fulfilment options or channels for each item; in the example of Figure 1, each item in the cart has 4 different fulfillment options), wherein determining the plurality of target product object that supports the target logistics plan comprises:
querying a product object information database based at least in part on corresponding identifications of the multiple product objects (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text; para. [0033], available fulfillment options for each item are stored in a product catalog database that accessed by the online retail system); and
determining respective identifications of one or more target logistics plans supported by the multiple product objects based at least in part on records stored in the product information database (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text; para. [0033], available fulfillment options for each item are stored in a product catalog database that accessed by the online retail system; para. [0032], shopping cart displays a listing for each of a plurality of items that includes available fulfilment options or channels for each item; in the example of Figure 1, each item in the cart has 4 different fulfillment options); and
generating a page corresponding to the target collection, and aggregating the plurality of target product object into a first area for display (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text, first 2 items in the top half of the page have a product availability option of “Ship to Store—Free”, while the 3rd item has a product availability option of Delivery, and the 4th item has a product availability option of “Store Pickup—Free”), wherein:
the page comprises the first area displaying the plurality of target product object that supports the target logistics plan and a second area displaying remaining product objects of the multiple product objects in the target collection that do not support the target logistics plan (See Tepfenhart, at least FIG. 1 and associated text, first 2 items in the top half of the page have a product availability option of “Ship to Store—Free”, while the 3rd item has a product availability option of Delivery, and the 4th item has a product availability option of “Store Pickup—Free”).
Tepfenhart does not expressly disclose determining whether the plurality of target products objects satisfies one or more conditions associated with the target logistics plan…; in response to determining that the plurality of target products objects satisfies the one or more conditions associated with the target logistic plan…, providing a first operation option for adding other product objects that support the target logistics plan to the target collection associated with the first user; and after the first user selects at least one product object of the other product objects, aggregating and displaying the at least one product object with the plurality of target products objects in the first area.
However, Wadhawan discloses:
determining whether the plurality of target products objects satisfies one or more conditions associated with the target logistics plan…(See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 7 and associated text, Tide Original Laundry Detergent, Price $11.99, weight 7 pounds, available in the Weighted Shipping Zone; FIG. 8 and associated text, item 802, 7 pounds in box, you can add 33 more (prompt); condition satisfied is the 40 pounds; para. [0044], box allocation module 152 can determine whether there is enough room (e.g., based on weight, volume, or any other physical or logical metric) in the existing box(es) to fit the selected item; box allocation module 152 can determine the available capacity of a physical box; box allocation module 152 may determine a representation of what a physical box's capacity would be if one or more items were added to the physical box);
in response to determining that the plurality of target products objects satisfies the one or more conditions associated with the target logistic plan…, providing a first operation option for adding other product objects that support the target logistics plan to the target collection associated with the first user (See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 8 and associated text, item 802, 7 pounds in box, you can add 33 more (prompt); condition satisfied is the 40 pounds; item 804 displays other products available under Weighted Shipping to add to the box; para. [0044], box allocation module 152 can determine whether there is enough room (e.g., based on weight, volume, or any other physical or logical metric) in the existing box(es) to fit the selected item; box allocation module 152 can determine the available capacity of a physical box; para. [0045], box allocation module 152 provides to the user a box status (e.g., via a user interface display) indicating the total weight of the items placed in the box(es), para. [0084], set of item recommendations 804 displayed to the user based on the current items already in the weight-based shipping container); and
after the first user selects at least one product object of the other product objects, aggregating and displaying the at least one product object with the plurality of target products objects in the first area (See Wadhawan, at least FIG. 7 and associated text, Tide Original Laundry Detergent, Price $11.99, weight 7 pounds, available in the Weighted Shipping Zone; FIG. 8 and associated text, item 802, 7 pounds in box; item 804, Customers Who Bought Tide Original Laundry…Also Bought, i.e., the Tide Laundry Detergent is in the box and system is recommending other products; FIG. 10 and associated text, products available for Weighted Shipping are displayed along with their respective weights; para. [0088], FIGS. 11A illustrates the process of adding items to the weight-based shipping container; in this case, the Pepperidge Farm Goldfish, Cheddar 30-ounce carton weighting 2 pounds and costing $6.78 is added to the box so that the box weight now equals 9 pounds; Figure 13 displays the box/shopping cart with both the Tide and the Goldfish crackers in it).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the product fulfilment system and method of Tepfenhart the ability of determining whether the plurality of target products objects satisfies one or more conditions associated with the target logistics plan…; in response to determining that the plurality of target products objects satisfies the one or more conditions associated with the target logistic plan…, providing a first operation option for adding other product objects that support the target logistics plan to the target collection associated with a first user; and after the first user selects at least one product object of the other product objects, aggregating and displaying the at least one product object with the plurality of target products objects in the first area as disclosed by Wadhawan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow users “to purchase a group of items and a pay a flat shipping fee.” (See Wadhawan, at least para. [0023]).
Neither Tepfenhart nor Wadhawan expressly discloses determining multiple product objects in a target collection associated with a first user, wherein: the multiple product objects are associated with at least one second user, the multiple product objects are added into the target collection by the at least one second user, the first user is a user of a first country, and the at least one second user is a user of a second country and that the target logistics plan is in a cross-border logistics scenario.
However, Racco discloses determining multiple product objects in a target collection associated with a first user, wherein: the multiple product objects are associated with at least one second user, the multiple product objects are added into the target collection by the at least one second user, the first user is a user of a first country, and the at least one second user is a user of a second country (See Racco, at least FIG. 20 and associated text; para. [0172], sellers can specify how they will ship their item to buyers; for example, Canadian and US sellers may choose different shipping methods to buyers in Canada, the United States and international buyers; if the seller is not from Canada or the US, they would have a fourth option allowing them to specify their shipping method to buyers in their own country; for example, if the user is from Australia, they can specify a shipping method for shipping within Australia, shipping to Canada, the United States and shipping internationally; the seller in Australia may want to offer free shipping to buyers within Australia, offer a flat shipping rate to buyers in the United States, use calculated shipping (using UPS, Fed-Ex, the United States Postal Service etc. to automatically calculate the shipping price based on the buyer's location and weight and dimensions of the packaged items), and finally require that international buyers make individual shipping requests to the seller so that they could determine shipping on a per user basis; para. [0173], buyer chooses three items to be shipped); and that the target logistics plan is in a cross-border logistics scenario (See Racco, at least FIG. 20 and associated text; para. [0172], sellers can specify how they will ship their item to buyers; for example, Canadian and US sellers may choose different shipping methods to buyers in Canada, the United States and international buyers; if the seller is not from Canada or the US, they would have a fourth option allowing them to specify their shipping method to buyers in their own country; for example, if the user is from Australia, they can specify a shipping method for shipping within Australia, shipping to Canada, the United States and shipping internationally; the seller in Australia may want to offer free shipping to buyers within Australia, offer a flat shipping rate to buyers in the United States, use calculated shipping (using UPS, Fed-Ex, the United States Postal Service etc. to automatically calculate the shipping price based on the buyer's location and weight and dimensions of the packaged items), and finally require that international buyers make individual shipping requests to the seller so that they could determine shipping on a per user basis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the product fulfilment system and method of Tepfenhart and the shipping system and method of Wadhawan the ability of determining multiple product objects in a target collection associated with a first user, wherein: the multiple product objects are associated with at least one second user, the multiple product objects are added into the target collection by the at least one second user, the first user is a user of a first country, and the at least one second user is a user of a second country and that the target logistics plan is in a cross-border logistics scenario as disclosed by Racco since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a tool that allows a seller “to be flexible and ‘mix and match’ their shipping options to different geographic regions.” (See Racco, at least para. [0172]).
Neither Tepfenhart nor Wadhawan nor Racco expressly discloses combining, after receiving a request for generating a transaction order, the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object included in the request into a same transaction order, to facilitate transportation and delivery through the target logistics plan, wherein the target logistics plan includes a first logistics stage and a second logistics stage, the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object are respectively transported to a target collection destination in the second country in the first logistics stage, and the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object are consolidated for shipping to a delivery address associated with the first user in the first country in the second logistics stage.
However, Plaster discloses combining, after receiving a request for generating a transaction order, the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object included in the request into a same transaction order, to facilitate transportation and delivery through the target logistics plan, wherein the target logistics plan includes a first logistics stage and a second logistics stage, the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object are respectively transported to a target collection destination in the second country in the first logistics stage, and the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object are consolidated for shipping to a delivery address associated with the first user in the first country in the second logistics stage (See Plaster, at least para. [0079], at least two of the retrieved items corresponding to two different merchants are packaged into a single package for shipment; para. [0080], package containing at least two items is tendered to a carrier for shipping to the customer) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the product fulfilment system and method of Tepfenhart and the shipping system and method of Wadhawan and the cross-border selling system of Racco the ability of combining, after receiving a request for generating a transaction order, the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object included in the request into a same transaction order, to facilitate transportation and delivery through the target logistics plan, wherein the target logistics plan includes a first logistics stage and a second logistics stage, the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object are respectively transported to a target collection destination in the second country in the first logistics stage, and the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object are consolidated for shipping to a delivery address associated with the first user in the first country in the second logistics stage as disclosed by Plaster since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “packaging and shipping a group of items…separately may cost more than packaging and shipping those items together.” (See Plaster, at least para. [0075]).
Claim 20: The combination of Tepfenhart and Wadhawan and Racco and Plaster discloses all the limitations of claim 19 discussed above.
Neither Tepfenhart nor Wadhawan nor Racco expressly discloses wherein: the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object are combined and delivered to the delivery address associated with the first user in the first country in the second logistics stage.
However, Plaster discloses wherein: the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object are combined and delivered to the delivery address associated with the first user in the first country in the second logistics stage (See Plaster, at least para. [0079], at least two of the retrieved items corresponding to two different merchants are packaged into a single package for shipment; para. [0080], package containing at least two items is tendered to a carrier for shipping to the customer; para. [0115], carriers include postal service, UPS, couriers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the product fulfilment system and method of Tepfenhart and the shipping system and method of Wadhawan and the cross-border selling system of Racco the ability wherein: the plurality of target product objects and the at least one product object are combined and delivered to the delivery address associated with the first user in the first country in the second logistics stage as disclosed by Plaster since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “packaging and shipping a group of items…separately may cost more than packaging and shipping those items together.” (See Plaster, at least para. [0075]).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights