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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to application KR10-2023-0010646 filed 1/27/2023. The certified copy has been received in filed on 3/4/2024.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/14/2025 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 2, 3, and 13 have been cancelled.
Claim 14 is newly added.
Claims 1, 4-12, and 14 are pending.
Claims 4-5 are withdrawn (as set forth previously).
Claims 1, 6-12, and 14 stand rejected.
Claim Objection – Minor Informalities
Claim 12 is objected to for the following informalities: Claim 12 recites “selecting, om response to the request…” in line 16. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been considered in light of the accompanying amendments. The amendment is effective to overcome this rejection.
II. Applicant’s amendments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that various limitations of claim1 do not amount to mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer, making comparison to McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. The basis for the court’s decision in McRO was that the claims were clearly directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce "accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters"). As part of the analysis, the court in McRO emphasized the specification, which clearly described the invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules. The decision in McRO was similar to that in Enfish v. Microsoft (Fed. Cir. 2016) and other decisions in that the courts emphasized the specificity of the specification in detailing and solving a problem arising in a specific technology or technical field.
The Examiner holds that a comparison to the circumstances and concepts described in McRO is inapposite. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. 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 (MPEP 2106.05(a))
The specification and claims set forth only at a high level of generality the generation of an online shop. Neither claims nor the specification provide any detail concerning the technical explanation of how this is performed by the computer, and lack any restriction on the manner in which these steps are performed by the computer. Applicant’s assertion is little more than a bare assertion without the necessary detail to demonstrate the alleged improvement. Furthermore, a recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP 216.05(f)).
MPEP 2106.05(d) also contrasts the McRO decision with that in in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC. In that decision, the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Examiner holds that a more proper comparison of the claimed invention is to that of Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, rather than McRO (or other eligible decisions.
The Examiner further argues that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use also fails to confer eligibility upon the claim. One example of this is the aforementioned Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC. The court identified the claimed concept of providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast content as an abstract idea, and noted that the additional elements limited the wireless delivery of regional broadcast content to cellular telephones (as opposed to any and all electronic devices such as televisions, cable boxes, computers, or the like). Although the additional elements did limit the use of the abstract idea, the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cellular telephones) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims (see: MPEP 2106.05(h)).
On page 9-10, Applicant argues that the listed operations are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Initially, the Examiner notes that grouping sellers into hierarchies, seller selection, and rule-based template generation form part of the abstract idea and are not themselves considered additional elements. Further, the broad assertion that “coordination of these operations” provides an improvement in technology again represents little more than the broad assertion of an improvement. The Examiner reiterates the highly-generalized and broad nature of both the disclosed and claimed invention fails to lead one of ordinary skill in the art to determine that the claimed invention improves technology. At best, the claimed invention provides an improved commercial process, manifesting an improvement only in the abstract idea itself (as opposed to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field).
Turning to Applicant’s comparison to DDR Holdings Inc. v. Hotels.com (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Examiner again disagrees. The claims in DDR Holdings attempted to address the problem specific to the routine functionality of a link (i.e. a user is directed away from the current page to the site of another merchant). The claims of DDR Holdings specified how interactions with the computer/Internet were manipulated to create a composite/hybrid page that prevented the user from being directed to the outside merchant, therein overriding the routine function of the link. The claims of the instant application, however, lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed to generate the online shop using a design template. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the claims in Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC (above), Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims contained no restriction on the manner in which the additional elements perform these claimed functions), and Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (generally linked the abstract idea to a particular technological environment).
Applicant sets forth similar argumentation with respect to claim 12 and new claim 14. The Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
With further regards to Bascom, the Examiner again disagrees. The focus of the court was the installation of the filtering tool at a specific location, which represented a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces" resulting in a technical improvement. Neither the claims at issue, nor Applicant’s specification, purport to offer a “non-conventional” arrangement of components tantamount to that of Bascom. Instead, the claims at issue recite conventional computing components arranged in a conventional manner leveraged only as a mechanism for achieving the claimed result more efficiently.
Furthermore, the non-conventional arrangement in Bascom resulted in particular technical improvements (e.g. providing Internet-content filtering in a manner that can be customized for the person attempting to access such content while avoiding the need for (potentially millions of) local servers or computers to perform such filtering and while being less susceptible to circumvention by the user - see Bascom, p. 13, p. 16-17). Neither Applicant’s claims nor Applicant’s specification offer or otherwise discuss improvements similar to those in Bascom. Once again, any improvement manifested by the claims falls squarely in improving the commercial process.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained below.
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 and 6-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, in the final limitation claim 1 recites generating and providing a pre-made design template based on the determined as least one design to the seller. The phrase “the seller” could refer to a number of sellers in the claim; however, as best understood by the Examiner this refers to the designated seller because it is this seller that has requested the online shop generation and to which the design template is being provided. This is also commensurate with claim 12 (which recites the designated seller as being provided the design template). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6-11 depend from claim 1 and are rejected therewith.
Specifically regarding claims 10 and 11, these claims recite “the seller” similar to claim 1. It is also best understood by the Examiner that “the seller” in claims 10 and 11 refers to the designated seller. 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, 6-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 6-12, and 14, under Step 2A claims 1, 6-12, and 14 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 an e-commerce platform server to (emphasis added):
register a plurality of sellers the plurality of sellers being grouped in different seller groups, each seller group having a hierarchy including a top seller and at least one sub-seller subordinate to the top seller, the sub-seller being subordinate to the top seller to whom the sub-seller subordinates in terms of sales products and sales conditions of products, where a plurality of sellers included in a specific seller group of the plurality of different seller groups share profits from product sales according to a profit rate set by the top seller of the specific seller group;
register sales products of the top seller for each seller group;
generate an online shop of each of the plurality of sellers, the online shop including at least one of registered sales products of the top seller of the seller group to whom the plurality of sellers belong;
when a designated seller of the specific seller group of the plurality of seller groups requests a generation of an online shop, select at least one seller from either a plurality of sellers of the specific seller group including the designated seller or a plurality of sellers of another seller group of the plurality of seller groups including another top seller who has registered products, which are in a same category as but different from sales products of the top seller to whom the designated seller is subordinate;
determine at least one design based on a design of the online shop of the selected at least one seller; and
generating and providing a pre-made design template based on the determined at least one design to the seller.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth and describes concepts for registering sellers and products such that a design of an online shop may be recommended. This represents the performance of a marketing and/or sales activity, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, claim 1 can also be understood to recite limitations that set forth or describe “mental processes” that are performable in the human mind, or by pen and paper. This is because the steps of claim 1 (e.g., determine at least one design based on a design of the online shop of the selected at least one seller, and, generating and providing a pre-made design template based on the determined at least one design to the seller) can be accomplished in the human mind, or using a physical aid such as pen and paper, and represent observations, evaluations or judgments (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Notably, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 also recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including a server, a communication device, a memory configured to store one or more instructions, and a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory, wherein the processor is configured, by executing the one or more instructions. Claim 1 also recites a seller database (DB), a sales product database (DB), and an online shop.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is 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 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).
With specific reference to generating an online shop, the Examiner emphasizes the high-level of generality of these limitations. The claims as written do not set forth any restriction on or technical explanation of how on the online shop is generated. Notably, the court in Affinity Labs of TX v. DirecTV (MPEP 2106.05(a)) relied on the specification's failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones directed to an abstract idea. Likewise, the court in Internet Patents v. Active Networks, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) emphasized the failure to describe the mechanisms for performing certain functions (e.g. maintaining a state) to be critical in determining that the claims were ineligible. These further underscore that the claims amount 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 elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
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 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) applies or uses 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.
Returning to representative claim 1, 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.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
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.
Regarding dependent claims 6-11, dependent claims 6-11 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 6-11 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 6-11 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 6-11 utilize similar additional elements as claim 1 that are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount 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 elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 6-11 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 6-11 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claim 12 under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 12 recites a method that encompasses at least substantially similar limitations and scope as recited in claim 1. The analysis of claim 12 under step 2A (prong 1) is substantially similar to the analysis of the claim 1 as discussed above. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and/or within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 12 under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 12 recites similar additional elements for consideration under prong 2, such as an e-commerce platform server, a seller database (DB), a sales product database (DB), and an online shop. Notably, claim 12 further adds that the method is for creating a web page, and the step of creating a web page based on the recommended design.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 12 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount 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).
With specific reference to generating an online shop, the Examiner emphasizes the high-level of generality of these limitations. The claims as written do not set forth any restriction on or technical explanation of how on the online shop is generated. Notably, the court in Affinity Labs of TX v. DirecTV (MPEP 2106.05(a)) relied on the specification's failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones directed to an abstract idea. Likewise, the court in Internet Patents v. Active Networks, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) emphasized the failure to describe the mechanisms for performing certain functions (e.g. maintaining a state) to be critical in determining that the claims were ineligible. These further underscore that the claims amount 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 elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception (in this case, commercial activities) to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, 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 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) applies or uses 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 12 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 12 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.
Returning to representative claim 1, 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.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 12 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 12 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 12 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claim 14, under Step 2A (prong 1) claim 14 recites an e-commerce platform server to:
register a plurality of sellers, the plurality of sellers being grouped in different seller groups, each seller group having a hierarchy including a top seller registered as a master seller, and a plurality of sub-sellers subordinate to the top seller in terms of sales products and sales conditions of products;
store, for each seller group, sales products registered by the top seller;
generate an online shop for each of the plurality of sellers, the online shop including at least one of the sales products registered by the top seller of the seller group to which the seller belongs;
determine, when a designated seller belonging to a first seller group requests a generation of an online shop, at least one recommended design based on a design of an online shop of at least one seller selected from a plurality of sub-sellers included in the first seller group, or a plurality of sellers included in a second seller group having another top seller, wherein the other top seller has registered products in the same category as but different from the sales products of the top seller of the first seller group;
generate a pre-made design template based on the determined recommended design, wherein the pre-made design template comprises a layout, item display format, or content arrangement of the online shop of the selected seller; and
provide the pre-made design template to the designated seller.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth and describes concepts for registering sellers and products such that a design of an online shop may be recommended. This represents the performance of a marketing and/or sales activity, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 14 recites an abstract idea because claim 14 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, claim 14 can also be understood to recite limitations that set forth or describe “mental processes” that are performable in the human mind, or by pen and paper. This is because the steps of claim 14 (e.g., determine, when a designated seller belonging to a first seller group requests a generation of an online shop, at least one recommended design…, and, generate a pre-made design template based on the determined recommended design, wherein the pre-made design template comprises a layout, item display format, or content arrangement of the online shop of the selected seller) can be accomplished in the human mind, or using a physical aid such as pen and paper, and represent observations, evaluations or judgments (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Notably, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 14 also recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 14 does recite additional elements, including a server, a communication device, a memory configured to store one or more instructions, and a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory. Claim 14 also recites a seller database (DB), a sales product database (DB), and an online shop.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 14 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount 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).
With specific reference to generating an online shop, the Examiner emphasizes the high-level of generality of these limitations. The claims as written do not set forth any restriction on or technical explanation of how on the online shop is generated. Notably, the court in Affinity Labs of TX v. DirecTV (MPEP 2106.05(a)) relied on the specification's failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones directed to an abstract idea. Likewise, the court in Internet Patents v. Active Networks, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) emphasized the failure to describe the mechanisms for performing certain functions (e.g. maintaining a state) to be critical in determining that the claims were ineligible. These further underscore that the claims amount 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 elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
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 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) applies or uses 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 14 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.
Returning to representative claim 14, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 14 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.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 14 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Note - Claim Term Interpretation
A “top seller” is understood as a seller at the top of a hierarchy, the term “top” indicating a relative position in the hierarchy (not a “best” seller, as in a seller who sells the most). A “subordinate sub-seller” is a seller at a lower level of the hierarchy relative to the top seller.
The term “when” is understood to indicate a function or step performed “in response to” (e.g., claim 1: the processor is configured to perform selecting at least one seller when (i.e., in response to) a designated seller requests a generation of an online shop, claim 12: the method performs selecting at least one seller when (i.e., in response to) a designated seller requests a generation of an online shop).
The term pre-made design template indicates a design template that may be applied to an online shop. The design template is pre-made in the sense that it was made prior to its use by a seller (e.g., a designated seller who requests shop generation) for generation of an online shop.
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, 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, 6-11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murugan (US 2008/0275795 A1) in view of Al-Sallami (US 2020/0183553 A1) and Harrington (US 2014/0278849 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murugan discloses an e-commerce platform server (e.g., Fig. 1, 0017) comprising:
a communication device (see: 0020);
a memory configured to store one or more instructions (see: 0017-0018); and
a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory, wherein the processor is configured, by executing the one or more instructions (see: 0019)
register a plurality of sellers in a seller database (DB), the plurality of sellers being grouped in different seller groups, each seller group having a hierarchy including a top seller and at least one sub-seller subordinate to the top seller, the sub-seller being subordinate to the top seller to whom the sub-seller subordinates in terms of sales products and sales conditions of products (see: 0023 (seller hierarchy model may be stored in one or more databases or other data storage arrangements), 0025-0026, Fig. 2 #290, 292, & 294,);
register sales products of the top seller for each seller group in a sales products DB (see: 0023 (sellers for each product associated with one or more enterprises 120a-120n), 0025 (each product may be managed independently, or grouped together with other manufactured products into product groups)).
Though disclosing all of the above as well as registration of information into a database (e.g., Fig. 2, 0023), and a networked platform for order processing (e.g., Fig. 1, 0020, 0022).
Murugan, however, does not disclose:
generate an online shop of each of the plurality of sellers, the online shop including at least one of registered sales products of the top seller of the seller group to whom the plurality of sellers belong;
when a designated seller of the specific seller group of the plurality of seller groups requests a generation of an online shop, select at least one seller from either a plurality of sellers of the specific seller group including the designated seller or a plurality of sellers of another seller group of the plurality of seller groups including another top seller who has registered products, which are in a same category as but different from sales products of the top seller to whom the designated seller is subordinate;
determine at least one design based on a design of the online shop of the selected at least one seller; and
generating and providing a pre-made design template based on the determined at least one design to the seller.
To this accord, Al-Sallami also discloses an e-commerce platform server (e.g., Fig. 1, 0040, Fig. 2, 0063) comprising:
a communication device (see: 0236, 0041, 0045);
a memory configured to store one or more instructions (see: 0237-0238); and
a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory, wherein the processor is configured, by executing the one or more instructions (see: 0237-0238), to:
register a plurality of sellers…into a seller database (DB) (see: 0059-0060, Fig. 2 #240, 0124, 0150)
register sales products of a seller in a sales products DB (see: 0058 (inventory database 238 storing inventory data associated with item(s) offered for sale by the merchants), Fig. 2 #238);
generate an online shop of each of the plurality of sellers, the online shop including at least one of registered sales products of the seller of the seller group to whom the plurality of sellers belong (see: 0039, 0055, 0152, Fig. 1 #116);
Note: For each of the merchants in a group of merchants (i.e., seller group), a web page for an online store is generated (i.e., online shop) using the item information registered in the inventory database.
when a designated seller of the specific seller group of the plurality of seller groups requests a generation of an online shop, select at least one seller from either a plurality of sellers of the specific seller group including the designated seller (see: 0070 (identify frameworks to recommend based on…similar merchants, data associated with eCommerce web sites of other merchants), 0147, 0150 (determine a group of merchants 1102 that are similar to another merchant 1104 based at least in part on the merchant data), 0151 (merchants in the group of merchants 1102 can share one or more characteristics (e.g., MCC, location, inventory, etc.) with the merchant 1104), Fig. 13 #1304-1310, 0165-0166) or a plurality of sellers of another seller group of the plurality of seller groups including another top seller who has registered products, which are in a same category as but different from sales products of the top seller to whom the designated seller is subordinate;
determine at least one design based on a design of the online shop of the selected at least one seller (see: Fig. 9 #902, 910, & 906, 0130-0134, 0137 (list winter jackets first in an item section of a web page), Fig. 13 #1312, 0169); and
Note: the recommendation module identifies web page components, order to list items, content to be added, layout, design, etc. This represents determining at least one design.
generating and providing a pre-made design template based on the determined at least one design to the seller (see: 0053 (layouts and designs are associated with templates that are presented as starting points), Fig. 3 (304A-C), 0067, Fig. 9 (906-908), 0135, Fig. 13 (1312-1314), 0170).
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 invention of Murugan to have utilized the known technique for creating or editing web pages (online shops) of merchants as taught by Al-Sallami in order to have enabled the top seller (and even sub-sellers) of Murugan to have developed improved online shops by receiving recommendation of web page features (e.g., content, design, layout), thereby assisting sellers in creating web pages that lead to eCommerce success (see: Al-Sallami: 0027).
Lastly, though disclosing all of the above including a tiered seller hierarchy of top sellers and sub-sellers, Murugan does not disclose where a plurality of sellers included in a specific seller group of the plurality of different seller groups share profits from product sales according to a profit rate set by the top seller of the specific seller group. Revenue and/or profit sharing in such tiered seller architectures was well-known at the time of invention, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For example, Harrington discloses a system for operating a multi-level marketing program for registering a plurality of sellers including at least one top seller (e.g., merchandiser) and at least one sub-seller (e.g., primary sub-affiliates, tier 1-N sub-affiliates) subordinate to each of the at least one top seller (see: Fig. 1, 0007-0008). Harrington further discloses where a plurality of sellers included in a specific seller group of the plurality of different seller groups share profits from product sales according to a profit rate set by the top seller of the specific seller group (see: 0028, 0034, Fig. 3 #338-344).
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 invention of Murugan to have utilized the commission-based profit sharing technique as taught by Harrington in order to have enabled the sellers of Murugan to have simplify and effectively made one or more affiliate programs available for any person or entity while effectively increasing a top seller’s sales in a highly competitive market (see: Harrington: 0006, 0003, 0009-0010).
6. The e-commerce platform server of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured, by executing the one or more instructions, to select the at least one seller among sub-sellers included in the seller group when selecting at least one seller from the seller group of the seller for whom the design is recommended (see: 0070 (identify frameworks to recommend based on…similar merchants, data associated with eCommerce web sites of other merchants), 0147, 0150 (determine a group of merchants 1102 that are similar to another merchant 1104 based at least in part on the merchant data), 0151 (merchants in the group of merchants 1102 can share one or more characteristics (e.g., MCC, location, inventory, etc.) with the merchant 1104), Fig. 13 #1304-1310, 0165-0166).
7. The e-commerce platform server of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured, by executing the one or more instructions, to: register the top seller as a master seller in the seller DB, register sub-sellers subordinate to the top seller as manager sellers and general sellers subordinate to the manager seller in the seller DB, when registering the plurality of sellers in the hierarchy, the manager seller being granted an authority to manage the general sellers (see: Murugan: Fig. 2, 0025; Harrington: Fig. 1, 0007, 0011); and
select the at least one seller among the general sellers when selecting at least one seller among the sub-sellers (see: 0151 (merchants in the group of merchants 1102 can share one or more characteristics (e.g., MCC, location, inventory, etc.) with the merchant 1104), Fig. 13 #1304-1310, 0165-0166).
8. The e-commerce platform server of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to, by executing the one or more instructions, determine the design of the online shop of the selected at least one seller as the recommended at least one design when determining the at least one design (see: Al-Sallami: Fig. 9 #902, 910, & 906, 0130-0134, 0137 (list winter jackets first in an item section of a web page), Fig. 13 #1312, 0169).
9. The e-commerce platform server of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to, by executing the one or more instructions, determine a new design obtained by selectively combining parts of the design of the online shop of the selected at least one seller as the recommended at least one design, when determining the at least one design (see: Al-Sallami: Fig. 9 #902, 910, & 906, 0130-0134, 0137 (list winter jackets first in an item section of a web page), Fig. 13 #1312, 0169).
Note: content, components, layout, item order, etc. represent parts to be combined in editing an existing web site thereby forming a new design.
10. The e-commerce platform server of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to, by executing the one or more instructions, recommend the determined at least one design to the seller who requested generation of the online shop in a process of generating the online shop, when recommending the determined at least one design to the seller (see: Al-Sallami: Fig. 8 #806, 0115, Fig. 9 #902, 910, & 906, 0130-0134, 0137 (list winter jackets first in an item section of a web page), Fig. 13 #1312, 0169).
11. The e-commerce platform server of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured, by executing the one or more instructions, to:
recommend the determined at least one design to the seller in a process of providing consulting information based on history information on selling products through the generated online shop, when recommending the determined at least one design to the seller (see: Al-Sallami: Fig. 9 #902, 910, & 906, 0130-0134, Fig. 13 #1312, 0169); and
select the at least one seller whose sales amount is higher than that of the seller for whom the design is recommended among at least one of a seller group that includes the seller for whom the design is recommended and another seller group that sells products in the same category as sales products of the seller group, when selecting at least one seller among the plurality of sellers (see: Al-Sallami: 0027 (performance metrics, (e.g., sales, conversion rates, total revenues), 0147, 0152)).
Regarding claim 12 and claim 14, claim 12 and claim 14 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 su