DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 11/7/2025.
Claims 1-10 are elected.
Claims 11-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/10/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 11/7/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “further comprising a product engine that identifies and creates a process pause at least one of the plurality orders until the order entity submits the order change to continue the order,” which should read “further comprising a product engine that identifies and creates a process pause for at least one of the plurality orders until the order entity submits the order change to continue the order.” 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 1-3, 5-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
Communications server apparatus for managing complex orders of industrial supplies, comprising a processor and a memory, the communications server apparatus being configured, under control of the processor, to execute instructions in the memory to:
generate, for a plurality of orders of respective different order quantities associated with an order entity, each of the plurality of orders associated with a unique order rule set;
determine, for each unique order, a first order element of a first order category, a value of a first attribute parameter indicative of a first order rule requirement;
determine, for each unique order for a second order element of a second order category, a value of a second attribute parameter indicative of a second order rule requirement;
compare the values for the first and second order attribute parameters with a minimum order rules set associated with the order entity; and
use a comparison result to suggest an order change to at least one of the first or second order elements to the order entity.
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations as emphasized, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that a user interface is generated from the list and products are displayed on the user interface, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, “generate, determine, determine, compare, and suggest” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
The claim recites additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), including:
Communications server apparatus for managing complex orders of industrial supplies, comprising a processor and a memory, the communications server apparatus being configured, under control of the processor, to execute instructions in the memory to:
generate, for a plurality of orders of respective different order quantities associated with an order entity, each of the plurality of orders associated with a unique order rule set;
determine, for each unique order, a first order element of a first order category, a value of a first attribute parameter indicative of a first order rule requirement;
determine, for each unique order for a second order element of a second order category, a value of a second attribute parameter indicative of a second order rule requirement;
compare the values for the first and second order attribute parameters with a minimum order rules set associated with the order entity; and
use a comparison result to suggest an order change to at least one of the first or second order elements to the order entity.
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.) Specifically, the additional element of a server apparatus, a processor, a memory, and instructions is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of executing instructions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements to no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). For example, stating that the steps are performed by a processor executing instructions, only generally links the commercial interactions to a computer environment. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Therefore, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept and does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claims 2-10are dependencies of claim 1. The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. They recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, including:
further comprising a product engine that identifies and creates a process pause at least one of the plurality orders until the order entity submits the order change to continue the order. (a product engine is recited at a high degree of generality and only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment)
wherein a bundling engine generates the first order categories and the second order categories which are selected from a group of customer, vendor, shipping, market, and order variances categories.. (only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment)
wherein the order change that is recommended is created by an machine learning module in the bundling engine. (a machine learning module is recited at a high degree of generality and only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. No steps are recited to perform the creation of the order change recommendation, and it is not clear how the machine learning module provides a technical solution to a technological problem.)
wherein the bundling engine computes combinations of the first order attributes and the second order attributes to suggest an order combination that is allowed for the order entity based on the set of order rules for that order entity. (sales activities)
wherein a commerce engine utilizes a block chain ledger to register a transaction of the order entity when an order is placed by the order entity. (sales activities are only generally linked to a particular technological environment)
wherein the transaction of the order entity status is updated by at least an Internet of Things device attached to a shipment associated with the transaction of the order placed by the order entity. (an Internet of Things device is recited at a high degree of generality and only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment)
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
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 of this title, 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2014/0180806 A1 to BOAL in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0161602 A1 to CACERES.
Regarding Claim 1, BOAL discloses a Communications server apparatus for managing complex orders of industrial supplies, ([0095], 0195], [0212]) comprising a processor and a memory, the communications server apparatus being configured, under control of the processor, to execute instructions in the memory to ([0759], [0776]):
generate, for a plurality of orders of respective different order quantities associated with an order entity , each of the plurality of orders associated with a unique order rule set; ( [0676] A transaction is initiated by a consumer's selection of products or services to purchase. Products and purchases are collectively referred to herein as "items." The consumer may signal this selection by initiating a checkout process by, for example, bringing selected products to terminal 542. [0484] The business logic is based on the business rules established by the offer distributor. [0558] the generated recommendations may optionally be post-processed using pre-defined business rules. Examples of business rules are: promote specific items by increasing their ranking in the recommendations rule set; avoid specific items completely; target specific customers with one off promotions; constrain recommendations to avoid overlap with other concurrently running promotions; limit recommendations to certain categories, or spread recommendations to cover a more diverse range of categories.)
determine, for each unique order, a first order element of a first order category, a first attribute parameter indicative of a first order rule requirement; ([0352], looking up which offer(s) are associated with an item and, if requested by the provider, applying business rules to determine which of the offer(s) associated with the item should be identified. As another example, offer-to-item association scores may be used to determine which offer to identify for an item. [0377] proposing offers, terms, targets, and/or campaign parameters to a provider, according to an embodiment. Block 2810 comprises storing transaction data for a plurality of consumers from a plurality of different sources, as described in other sections. Block 2820 comprises correlating transaction data for particular consumers to form transaction histories specific to each of the particular consumers, [0384] offer may be proposed because transaction data shows that purchase of a product in one category of products is highly correlated with purchases in another category of products. [0558] Examples of business rules are: promote specific items by increasing their ranking in the recommendations rule set; avoid specific items completely; target specific customers with one off promotions; constrain recommendations to avoid overlap with other concurrently running promotions; limit recommendations to certain categories, or spread recommendations to cover a more diverse range of categories.)
determine, for each unique order for a second order element of a second order category, a second attribute parameter indicative of a second order rule requirement; ([0672] The master product table may comprise fields such as, without limitation, product identifier, UPC, department, category, subcategory, segment, and line. Separate tables may also exist for some or all retailers, including similar fields and/or SKU numbers. Additional tables may exist for information such as item descriptions, attributes, ratings, historical prices, product images, and/or inventory. [0566] A criteria workflow construction component lists available criteria in a number of categories, and the provider is allowed to select one or more of these criteria for the context. [0384] offer may be proposed because transaction data shows that purchase of a product in one category of products is highly correlated with purchases in another category of products.)
compare the values for the first and second order attribute parameters with a minimum order rules set associated with the order entity; and ([0079] Offer server 1380 compares data from offer data store 1385, transaction data store 1355, and consumer data store 1358 to match one or more offers to specific requests for offers. Depending on where offer server 1380 is deployed, offer server 1380 may communicate directly with consumer data store 1358 and/or transaction data store 1355, or offer server 1380 may request data via the transaction aggregation system 1350. [0273] he values of each similar field for each consumer record in each source collection are compared to the values of corresponding similar fields for each consumer record in each other source collection. Records from different collections whose similar fields have values that match to a certain degree of confidence, are found to be similar to each other. )
use a comparison result to suggest an order change to at least one of the first or second order elements to the order entity. ([0224] based at least on line item details from the matched set of transactions, selecting one or more offers from the plurality of offers in response to the request. For example, offer server 1380 may select offers for items that appear in the most recent matched transactions, or are complimentary to the items that appear in the most recent matched transactions. Or offer server 1380 may analyze the transactions for purchasing trends revealed by the matching transactions, and select offers based on those trends. [0348])
But does not explicitly disclose a value of a first attribute parameter; a value of a second attribute parameter; the values for the first and second order attribute parameter; compare the values for the first and second order attribute parameters; BOAL does disclose [0287] ach of the consumer records includes a plurality of values for a plurality of attributes, including one or more consumer credentials; [0396] values for non-dynamic terms of a dynamic offer. For example, a provider may intend for certain offer terms such as the start date, end date, and eligible products; [0404] different values for different categories of consumers.
CACERES, on the other hand, teaches a value of a first attribute parameter; a value of a second attribute parameter; the values for the first and second order attribute parameter; compare the values for the first and second order attribute parameters; ([0085] The "Grouping Score Threshold" field 970 allows the user to specify a minimum comparison score between two attribute values in order for the values to be grouped together. The "Minimum Average Score" field 975 allows the user to specify the AIDT parameter.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the apparatus, as taught by BOAL, the features, as taught by CACERES, 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. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOAL, to include the teachings of CACERES, in order to determining a measure of similarity between any given pair of attribute values (CACERES, [0085]).
Regarding Claim 2, BOAL in view of CACERES teaches the communications server apparatus of claim 1.
BOAL discloses further comprising a product engine that identifies and creates a process pause at least one of the plurality orders until the order entity submits the order change to continue the order. ([0560] non-auto-activated offers on digital receipts will be placed on hold for a certain period of time to guarantee that they are available for the targeted consumer for activation. However, if the non-auto-activated offer hold has expired on the digital receipt, then the consumer will be notified that the offer is no longer available.)
Regarding Claim 3, BOAL in view of CACERES teaches the communications server apparatus of claim 2.
BOAL discloses wherein the product engine suggests a replacement product in accordance with the set of order rules associated with the order entity. ([0330] one or more offers in the itemset may be replaced with products or services that are eligible for the respective offers. )
Regarding Claim 4, BOAL in view of CACERES teaches the communications server apparatus of claim 1.
BOAL discloses wherein a bundling engine generates the first order categories and the second order categories which are selected from a group of customer, vendor, shipping, market, and order variances categories. ([0129] Offer server 1580 may utilize the tracking data 1588 to derive signals for scoring functions, categorize consumers and/or events for offer targeting, enforce distribution limits, and so forth. [0064] customer conducting the transaction; [0079] offer providers [0397] a variable offer attribute (e.g., a variable term) of a dynamic offer. For example, instead of entering a specific value for a particular term, the provider may select a control indicating that the value of the term should be variable. Or, based on trend data, the offer definition interface may propose that a value be made variable. [0441] retailer identity, store location, )
Regarding Claim 5, BOAL in view of CACERES teaches the communications server apparatus of claim 4.
BOAL discloses wherein the order change that is recommended is created by an machine learning module in the bundling engine.. ([0164] scoring functions 1775 may have been derived in full or in part manually, or may have been learned by a learning component 1774 using any suitable machine learning techniques. The scoring functions may be optimized for different objective functions, also referred to herein as key performance indexes (KPIs). Different objective functions may be suitable for different recommendation contexts. Hence, different scoring functions 1775 may be executed by scoring engine 1772 for different recommendation contexts. [0397] a variable offer attribute (e.g., a variable term) of a dynamic offer. For example, instead of entering a specific value for a particular term, the provider may select a control indicating that the value of the term should be variable. Or, based on trend data, the offer definition interface may propose that a value be made variable.)
Regarding Claim 6, BOAL in view of CACERES teaches the communications server apparatus of claim 4.
BOAL discloses wherein the first order categories and the second order categories further comprise the first order attribute and the second order attribute. ([0660] Product attributes are useful to identify similarities among products within a specific product category. This type of information can contribute toward the development of algorithms that assess the similarity of products within the same category. )
Regarding Claim 7, BOAL in view of CACERES teaches the communications server apparatus of claim 6.
BOAL discloses wherein the first order attribute and the second order attribute are selected from a group of order attributes further comprising Order ID, Customer ID, Product ID, Quantity Ordered, Order Date, Shipping Address, Billing Address, Payment Method, Total Amount, Shipping Method, Shipping Cost, Tax Amount, Discount Applied, Order Status, Estimated Delivery Date, Tracking Number, Item Price, Order Source, Promotion Applied, Variance Applied, Affiliate ID, Warranty Option, Return Status, Currency Type, Weight, Dimensions, Payment Status, Shipping Provider, Shipping Preference, Invoice Number, IP Address, Order Modification Date, Cancellation Date, Customer Minimums, Customer Maximums, or Customer Order Rules.. ([0371] contextual transaction data may include any of a variety of information related to one or more consumer transactions conducted within a facility owned, controlled or operated by a retailer, including without limitation basket-level transaction details such as universal product codes and quantities purchased, total number of items purchased, transaction amounts, payment details (e.g., a credit card number, a payment identifier, a secure payment hash key), information about a data processing system, logic module or facility where the transaction takes place (e.g., terminal 1340 or store 1330), time, date, offers applied during the transactions, information relating to the customer conducting the transaction (e.g., a name, a phone number, a pin number, a password, a code, a loyalty card number, other biometric or personal identification data, etc.), RFID data, a device identifier, items that were purchased in a previous or concurrent transaction, a transaction number, and so forth. )
Regarding Claim 8, BOAL in view of CACERES teaches the communications server apparatus of claim 7.
BOAL discloses wherein the bundling engine computes combinations of the first order attributes and the second order attributes to suggest an order combination that is allowed for the order entity based on the set of order rules for that order entity. ([0330] collections may be filtered for demographic groups to which the consumer may belong. For example, the collections may be different for consumers in different regions, of different ages, or in different social networking groups. [0335] the related items include any item in a matched association. Depending on the embodiment and/or business rules, the related items may also include the one or more items associated with the request of block 2440. )
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2014/0180806 A1 to BOAL in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0161602 A1 to CACERES in view of WO 2022/133210 A2 to Strong Force TX (cited on the IDS dated 4/10/2024).
Regarding Claim 9, BOAL in view of CACERES teaches the method of claim 4.
However the combination of BOAL and CACERES does not explicitly teach wherein a commerce engine utilizes a block chain ledger to register a transaction of the order entity when an order is placed by the order entity.
STRONGE FORCE TX, on the other hand, teaches wherein a commerce engine utilizes a block chain ledger to register a transaction of the order entity when an order is placed by the order entity. ([0238] The terms ledger and distributed ledger (and similar terms) as utilized herein should be understood broadly. Without limitation to any other aspect or description of the present disclosure, a ledger may be a document, file, computer file, database, book, and the like which maintains a record of transactions. Ledgers may be physical or digital; … In the case of distributed ledgers, blockchain technology may be used. [1814] buy orders and sell orders )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by BOAL and CACERES, the features, as taught by STRONGE FORCE TX, 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. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination, to include the teachings of STRONGE FORCE TX, in order to improve performance (STRONGE FORCE TX, [1905]).
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2014/0180806 A1 to BOAL in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0161602 A1 to CACERES in view of WO 2022/133210 A2 to Strong Force TX in further view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0354930 A1 to Kosseifi.
Regarding Claim 10, BOAL in view of CACERES and STRONGE FORCE TX teaches the communication server apparatus of claim 9.
However the combination of BOAL, CACERES and STRONGE FORCE TX does not explicitly teach wherein the transaction of the order entity status is updated by at least an Internet of Things device attached to a shipment associated with the transaction of the order placed by the order entity.
Kosseifi, on the other hand, teaches wherein the transaction of the order entity status is updated by at least an Internet of Things device attached to a shipment associated with the transaction of the order placed by the order entity. ([0022] When the package 20 is delivered (perhaps by a UPS® or FEDEX® delivery service), a wireless security device 28 undergoes an initial activation 30. FIG. 1 illustrates the wireless security device 28 integrated within, or attached to, the package 20. As a simple example, the wireless security device 28 may be integrated with internal packing materials that protect or wrap a product 32 packaged inside a container 34 (such as a cardboard shipping box). Regardless, the wireless security device 28 may be initially activated using security credentials 36 associated with the rightful recipient. That is, the UPS® or FEDEX® delivery driver activates the wireless security device 28 using information known to, or obtained from, the rightful addressee. [0032] the security credentials 36 may be established during a purchase of the product 32 contained within the package 20. Suppose the product 32 is purchased online using the smartphone 72, thus requiring physical shipment and delivery to the addressee. As the reader likely understands, the smartphone 72 interfaces with a merchant's e-commerce website server 130 via the communications network 100 (such as the Internet) and conducts an electronic purchase transaction (or “EPT”) 132. That is, the smartphone 72 downloads a webpage or website via the Internet (e.g., perhaps a uniform resource locator or “URL”), and the user selects an electronic description 134 of her desired product 32. The user inputs her recipient shipping address 136 and enters her payment information 138 (e.g., credit card number). The user may even be required to supply her fingerprint 120 as a security measure. Because the smartphone 72 participated in the purchase, the electronic purchase transaction 132 may uniquely identify the smartphone 72 (such as by the cellular identifier 92). )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by BOAL and CACERES, the features, as taught by Kosseifi, 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. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination, to include the teachings of Kosseifi, in order to track security credentials associated with a shipment (Kosseifi, [0049]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle T. Kringen whose telephone number is (571)270-0159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-6pm.
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, Kelly Campen can be reached on (571)272-6740. 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.
/MICHELLE T KRINGEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688