DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-12, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-12 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites: A method for consolidated electronic ordering, the method comprising: providing a software portal for accepting a consolidated list of items from a user; breaking the consolidated list of items into a plurality of sub-lists, all items on each sub- list in the priority of sub-lists are available from a single vendor; determining preferences of the user with regards to ordering; modifying the plurality of sub-lists into a plurality of modified sub-lists wherein: the plurality of modified sub-lists are different from the plurality of sub-lists; and all items on each modified sub-list are available from a single vendor; retrieving stored ordering information of the user; and automatically providing at least a portion of the stored ordering information to a vendor for each modified sub-list so that the vendor is given an order for the items on each modified sub-list and will supply the items on the modified sub-list to the user.
The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to order items from a list (Specification ¶0029). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a single additional element that the ordering is “electronic” in the preamble.
This additional element is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional element of claim 1 is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that it amounts to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional element is 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 other technology or technical field, (ii) implement 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.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. MPEP 2106.05.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-12 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 2-12 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 2-12 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2-12 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 2-12 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
In view of the above, claims 1-12 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morales, US PG Pub 2011/0093361 A1 (hereafter “Morales”).
Regarding claim 1, Morales discloses a method for consolidated electronic ordering, the method comprising:
providing a software portal for accepting a consolidated list of items from a user (¶¶0050-0052, 0079-0080, 0087, and 0099);
breaking the consolidated list of items into a plurality of sub-lists, all items on each sub-list in the priority of sub-lists are available from a single vendor (¶¶0074-0078 and 0115-0116);
determining preferences of the user with regards to ordering (¶¶0080-0081);
modifying the plurality of sub-lists into a plurality of modified sub-lists wherein: the plurality of modified sub-lists are different from the plurality of sub-lists (¶¶0074, 0078-0080, 0108-0109, 0115-0116, 0136-0138, and 0146); and
all items on each modified sub-list are available from a single vendor (¶¶0074-0078, 0115-0116, and 0164);
retrieving stored ordering information of the user (¶0113); and
automatically providing at least a portion of the stored ordering information to a vendor for each modified sub-list so that the vendor is given an order for the items on each modified sub-list and will supply the items on the modified sub-list to the user (¶¶0054-0055, 0080-0087, 0111-0113, and 0166-0168).
Regarding claim 2, Morales discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the software portal is a software application for use on a mobile device (¶0052).
Regarding claim 3, Morales discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of the items are available from multiple vendors (¶¶0050, 0080, and 0113-0114).
Regarding claim 4, Morales discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the stored ordering information includes payment information (¶¶0112-0113).
Regarding claim 5, Morales discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the stored ordering information includes shipping information (¶¶0103 and 0113).
Regarding claim 6, Morales discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the stored ordering information includes delivery information (¶¶0113 and 0126).
Regarding claim 7, Morales discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the items include a mass market item available from multiple vendors (¶¶0091, 0130, and 0148).
Regarding claim 8, Morales discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the items includes a unique item only available from a single vendor (¶¶0058, 0080, 0112, and 0115).
Regarding claim 9, Morales discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: showing the user an item based on an indicated item on the list that may or may not be the item on the list and the user will indicate if they wish the shown item to be placed on a sub-list as the indicated item or not (¶¶0115 and 0116).
Regarding claim 10, Morales discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: showing the user another item that may or may not be the indicated item on the list when the user indicates not to place the shown item on the sub-list and the user will indicate if they wish the another shown item to be placed on a sub-list or not (¶¶0115 and 0116).
Regarding claim 11, Morales discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the order is supplied using an existing e-commerce portal of the vendor (¶¶0054 and 0080).
Regarding claim 12, Morales discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the order is supplied in a non-electronic form (¶¶0055, 0064, and 0113).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagarajayya, US PG Pub 2008/0071631 A1, teaches a marketplace with an easy way to manage e-commerce needs.
Doubinski et al., US PG Pub 2018/0108054 A1, teaches a system, method, and computer program for providing a wish list user interface within a web browser that alerts users to changes in multifactor-based prices.
Non-patent literature Ture, Tsegaye Beka teaches the fundamentals of the ubiquitous online shopping cart development and online ordering system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688