DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment on 01/19/2026. Claims 1-3 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 01/05/2024.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3 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.
The limitation relating to having the seller judge whether the product is defective in claim 1, line 26-27, includes a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The judging of the product defectiveness is judged by seller/person and their own personal opinions and is not defined by the claim, nor does the specification provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, this renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the term “target item” in line 36 and 40. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term as it has not been recited prior to this. This renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the trademarked “databased” in line 25 and 26. This recitation is unclear to the examiner. It does appear this is a trademarked term, thereby rendering the claim indefinite for using the trademarked term to described the method claim. 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 1-5 relate to process claims, and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Exemplary claim 1 recites the following abstract idea concepts: a method of providing a fulfillment management service, the method comprising:
storing a plurality of order statements related to history of a product (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. 792 F.3d. at 1367, 115 USPQ2d at 1639-40.);
constructing a database1 using the plurality of order statements (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue in Voter Verified was voting. The patentee claimed “[a] method for voting providing for self-verification of a ballot comprising the steps of” presenting an election ballot for voting, accepting input of the votes, storing the votes, printing out the votes, comparing the printed votes to votes stored in the computer, and determining whether the printed ballot is acceptable. 887 F.3d at 1384-85, 126 USPQ2d at 1503-04.);
determining a plurality of statistical information through the constructed database (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)); and
generating information for displaying at least one piece of statistical information on a screen among the determined plurality of statistical information and transmitting the generated information to a user terminal (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue was the social activity of “’providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity.’” 896 F.3d at 1344, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (citing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 193 F. Supp.3d 1184, 1188 (W.D. 2014)). The patentee claimed an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content. 896 F.3d at 1339-40, 127 USPQ2d at 1555.).
wherein the database is constructed to include a plurality of defective images in which defective products are captured (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Voter Verified), and
the method further comprises:
determining whether a first order statement related to return of a product is present among the plurality of order statements (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B); (III) mental processes):
when the first order statement is present, determining a second product included in the first order statement and a second product image in which the second product is captured (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B); (III) mental processes)
determining at least one first defective image corresponding to the second product (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B); (III) mental processes)
comparing the second product image and the at least one first defective image (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B); (III) mental processes)
when the at least one first defective image and the second product image have a similarity of a preset threshold or more as a comparison result, determining the second product as the defective product (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B); (III) mental processes) and
performing return of the second product in response to the first order statement (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B); (III) mental processes),
wherein the computing device is configured to:
when the second product sold by a first seller is determined to be defective based on a defective image databased for the first seller (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B); (III) mental processes),
determine a second seller that, based on a defective image databased for the second seller, does not judge the second product to be defective (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B); (III) mental processes), and
generate and provide a chat channel to enable a transaction between the first seller and the second seller (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing IV I LLC),
wherein the computing device is configured to:
when a first user needs to deliver a first item to a predetermined area, and a second user, who uses the same warehouse as the first user, is scheduled to deliver a second item within a distance of a predetermined threshold or less from the predetermined area on the same day (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B); (III) mental processes),
recommend to the first user a first delivery company used by the second user (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B); (III) mental processes),
wherein the computing device is configured to:
inquire about companies selling the target item sold by the first user who uses a warehouse managed by the computing devices to a pretrained generative artificial intelligence model (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B); (III) mental processes; See Recentive v. Fox, App. No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. 04/18/25) for machine learning and training),
crawl email addresses of the companies (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III(D) Content Extraction), and
transmit emails that request a quotation for the target item and confirmation of product delivery deadlines through the crawled email addresses periodically (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) Electric Power Grp.).
When these abstract idea concepts are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds claim 1 to recite abstract idea.
Step 2B, Prong 2 – Exemplary claim 1 is not found to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of, “a computing device comprising at least one processor” that performs the abstract idea. For this computing device, the examiner refers to MPEP 2106.05(f) - The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. For the claimed constructing a database, the examiner finds this to be abstract idea. See e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) citing Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The business relation at issue in Credit Acceptance is the relationship between a customer and dealer when processing a credit application to purchase a vehicle. The patentee claimed a “system for maintaining a database of information about the items in a dealer’s inventory, obtaining financial information about a customer from a user, combining these two sources of information to create a financing package for each of the inventoried items, and presenting the financing packages to the user.” See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: vii. 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,” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis added).
For the added storage of images in a database, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: iv. 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, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747.
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, these additional limitations are not found to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B - Exemplary claim 1 is not found to recite significantly more. The additional element analysis of Step 2A, Prong 2 is equally applied to Step 2B. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional (“WURC”) activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Exemplary claim 1 recites the following limitations that have been found, by the Federal Circuit, to include WURC activity:
Claim 1 has limitations that include receiving and/or transmitting data - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
Claim 1 has limitations that include storing and/or retrieving information in memory - iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Claim 1 has limitations relating to extracting - v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, these additional limitations are not found to recite significantly more but found to be WURC actvity. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to abstract idea.
Dependent claims – Claim 2 recites more abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Claim 3 recites more abstract idea without any inventive concept to pass Step 2A, prong 2; Step 2B. For abstract idea see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) citing Digitech; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group. For user interface see e.g. MPEP 2106.05(g) - iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claims 1-3 Distinguished Over the Prior Art
The examiner has thoroughly searched the claimed invention and has been unable to find each of the limitations in a reasonable amount of reference without taking into hindsight. Accordingly, the examiner finds the current claims 1-3 as distinguished over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed on 01/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive.
The previously-made rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn based on the amendments.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. The examiner maintains, as shown above, that the claims recite abstract idea. Further, the examiner has shown that the abstract idea is not integrated into practical application. Further yet, the examiner has shown that the claims do not add significantly more by reviewing the claims well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activities. The examiner has amended the 101 rejection above to address the current amended language.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
1 See e.g. Applicant’s originally-filed Specification at [0038], where constructing a database is storing data in a data storage that can be accessed.