DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to Preliminary Amendment filed 06/15/2023.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/063237 filed on 12/14/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “ receiving a purchase order of one or more items from one or more members of the purchaser group; shipping the items to the single address for receipt at the single address by one or more purchaser group members,” rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear whether one or more members of the purchaser group is the same or different from one or more purchaser group members. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites, “wherein items ordered by one or more purchaser group members,” rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear whether items and one or more purchaser group members recited in independent claim 1 is the same or different from is the same or different from items and one or more purchaser group members recited in claim 9. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claims 17 and 18 recite “items” rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear whether items recited in independent claim 1 is the same or different from items recited in dependent claims 17 and 18. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in claim:
Claim 1: shipping the items to the single address for receipt at the single address;
Claim 2: the multiple entities;
Claim 4: the purchaser group members reside in the same neighborhood;
Claims 7 and 10: the same date;
Claims 11 and 12: the time;
Claims 15 and 16 recite: the item delivery date is selected for the purchaser group's scheduled delivery date;
Appropriate correction or clarification 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 1 and 3-18 are directed to a method and claim 2 is directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention(process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, recites the abstract idea of:
establishing a purchaser group that 1) comprises multiple members and 2) has a single delivery address;
receiving a purchase order of one or more items from one or more members of the purchaser group;
shipping the items to the single address for receipt at the single address by one or more purchaser group members.
The above-recited limitations amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions related to establishing a purchaser group of multiple members for a single delivery address, receiving purchase orders from one or more of the plurality of members, and shipping the items to the single address. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts. See MPEP § 2106.
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims do not recite any additional elements.
The claims do not recite any elements that amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite any elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, no claim limitations were identified as additional limitations.
The limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ganesh et al. (US Pub. No. 20140278875 A1, hereinafter “Ganesh”).
Regarding claim 1
Ganesh discloses a method comprising:
establishing a purchaser group that 1) comprises multiple members and 2) has a single delivery address; receiving a purchase order of one or more items from one or more members of the purchaser group (Ganesh, [0003]: aggregating orders for a group of users for delivery to designated delivery location and receiving order from one or more group members for combined shipment; [0042]: receive purchase order);
shipping the items to the single address for receipt at the single address by one or more purchaser group members (Ganesh, [0011]: ships the combined order to the buying group's designated delivery location; [0036]: group member’s address).
Regarding claim 2
Ganesh discloses a method comprising: providing items purchased by a purchaser group that comprises multiple members; and shipping the items to a single address for receipt by the multiple entities (Ganesh, [0003]: aggregating orders for a group of users for delivery to designated delivery location and receiving order from one or more group members for combined shipment; [0042]: receive purchase order; [0011]: ships the combined order to the buying group's designated delivery location; [0036]: group member’s address).
Regarding claim 3
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the single address is a residential address (Ganesh, [0038]: delivery location is group member residence; [0036]: group member’s address).
Regarding claim 4
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 3 wherein the purchaser group members reside in the same neighborhood or building (Ganesh, [0010]: designate one of the neighbor’s homes as delivery destination; [0058]: same neighborhood).
Regarding claim 5
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the single address is a non- residential address (Ganesh, [0038]: delivery location is business or office; [0036]: group member’s address).
Regarding claim 7
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the one or more items are shipped on the same date (Ganesh, [0055]: shipping orders at same time).
Regarding claim 9
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein items ordered by one or more purchaser group members are collected and stored at a designated location until a selected shipping date (Ganesh, [0055]: aggregating the orders at distribution facility; [0061]: distribution facility used to distribute item and ship single shipment to office location; [0062]: items delivered to office and then shipped to other users).
Regarding claim 10
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the one or more items are moved to a shipping area on the same date (Ganesh, [0063]: coordinating delivery of the orders to a common location at substantially the same time).
Regarding claim 11
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein a purchaser group member is associated with the single address at the time of purchasing an item (Ganesh, [0059]: buying group includes three users; [0060]: one of the user’s office address is designated as delivery location; [0036]: group member’s address).
Regarding claim 12
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein a purchaser group member associates an item with the single address at the time of purchasing the item (Ganesh, [0061]: group order of items as part of single shipment to delivery location; [0036]: delivery location includes group member’s address).
Regarding claim 13
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein a purchaser group member is linked with the single address prior to purchasing an item (Ganesh, [0036]: online address book of user address used to pick delivery location when choosing shipping options for purchase; [0043]: submits shipping information and then completes the order).
Regarding claim 14
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein a purchaser group member may schedule delivery of a purchased item for any future date (Ganesh, [0055]: scheduling the shipment of the orders; [0011]: users distribute shipment on following day).
Regarding claim 15
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 14 wherein the item delivery date is selected for the purchaser group's scheduled delivery date (Ganesh, [0055]: scheduling the shipment of the orders to be at same time; [0063]: coordinating delivery of the orders to a common location at substantially the same time).
Regarding claim 16
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 14 wherein the item delivery date is selected for a date different than the purchaser group's scheduled delivery date (Ganesh, [0055]: scheduling the shipment of the orders; [0011]: users distribute shipment on following day after delivery date).
Regarding claim 17
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the one or more of the members purchases items by differing methods (Ganesh, [0045]: multiple payment methods; [0061]: each user separately placing and paying for their separate order).
Regarding claim 18
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the one or more of the members makes payment for items by differing methods (Ganesh, [0011]: any other members who wish to make the same or similar purchases complete an order online, submit payment, and indicate that the purchase is associated with a particular group; [0061]: each user separately placing and paying for their separate order; [0045]: multiple payment methods;).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Neumann (US Pub. No. 20210295951 A1, hereinafter “Neumann”).
Regarding claim 6
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the single address …(Ganesh, [0036]: residential address)
However, Ganesh does not teach:
the single address is an equine barn (emphasis added).
Neumann teaches:
the single address is an equine barn (emphasis added) (Neumann, [0103]: shipment to residence of animal; [0060]: animal includes horse; [0082]: barn).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the single address of Ganesh with an equine barn as taught by Neumann because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Ganesh would continue to teach a single residence address except that now an equine barn to ship items to horses is taught according to the teachings of Neumann in order to delivery items to animals. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Neumann, [0084] and [0103]).
Regarding claim 8
Ganesh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the one or more items are shipped on a …date (Ganesh, [0055]: scheduling the shipment of the orders to be at same time; [0062]: deliver at end of day; [0063]: coordinating delivery of the orders to a common location at substantially the same time).
Ganesh does not teach”
…a periodic date.
However, Neumann teaches:
…a periodic date (Neumann, [0103]: monthly delivery to be shipped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the shipping items on a date of Ganesh with a periodic date as taught by Neumann because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Ganesh would continue to teach shipping items on a date except that now a periodic date is taught according to the teachings of Neumann in order to delivery items based on a set frequency. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Neumann, [0103]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as Gibson et al. (US Pub. No. 20110246342 A1) related to billing community members and consolidating payments, Henderson, II (US Pub. No. 20190205832 A1) related to personalized parcel or package delivery, and non-patent literature, "Logistics and Service Opportunities and Issues," related to e-commerce depending on efficient logistics to deliver good to consumers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached on 5712726763. 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.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688